Organizational Change Management for Sustainability Insights from the Harvard Green Campus Initiative Case Study 2000-2008

Organizational Change Management for Sustainability Insights from the Harvard Green Campus Initiative Case Study 2000-2008 Leith Sharp, Harvard University Visiting Scholar, Harvard School of Public Health Faculty, Harvard Extension School Independent Consultant, Strategic Campus Sustainability Photo by Ben Ponte Lsharp@hsph.harvard.edu Leithsharp@yahoo.co.uk

About Harvard o600+ Buildings, over 23 million square feet, new campus in development olarge Population: 2500 faculty, 12,000 staff, 20,000 degree & 15,000 non-degree students ohighly Decentralized ocomplex infrastructure and organizational systems ocomplex stakeholder environment omixture of out-sourcing and in-house campus operations opolitically charged oghg emissions have grown by over 60% in the last 15 years a

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative (recently renamed Office for Sustainability) Start Up Story Harvard Green Campus Initiative: Organizational Chart 2000 Co-Chair Faculty, Harvard School of Public Health Prof. Jack Spengler Director, Leith Sharp Co-Chair Assoc. VP, Facilities & Environmental Services Tom Vautin a

2007-2008 Harvard receives the highest national green campus ratings from: The Sustainable Endowments Institute The Princeton Review Sierra Club Grist

Guiding Principle: Systems Based Problem and Solution Infrastructural Systems Organizational Systems Earth Systems Earth Impacts Energy supply and distribution Material supply and disposal Food supply Water supply and disposal Building design and construction Mission Leadership Style Organizational Culture Information Systems Procurement systems Decision Making Processes Ecosystems Climate systems Atmospheric systems Oceanic systems Geological systems Species extinction, increases in infectious vectors from insects Climate disturbance Ozone depletion, air pollution Rising sea levels, deep ocean current changes, fisheries depletion Building Mechanical Systems Ventilation Temperature control Transportation Non-vehicular Circulation Landscaping Finance & Accounting Structures Human resources Position Requirements Incentives Training Capital Developments Building operations and maintenance Water systems Nutrient systems Desertification, land pollution, mineral and resource depletion Water pollution, scarcity and unreliable rain fall Depletion of soil quality, build-up of toxins in soils Campus planning Copyright Leith Sharp 009

Guiding Principle: The Sustainability Enabled Organization The global environmental imperative requires us to change the way in which we do almost everything. The end goal, environmental sustainability, is a moving target. Therefore any organization or individual that is serious about addressing the environmental imperative needs to expand their capacities for engaging in the process of change itself. The sustainability enabled organization has a greater capacity for change and the related processes of continuous innovation and organizational transformation. Copyright Leith Sharp 2009

Guiding Principle: Stable Change Most believe that people are innately averse to change. A more useful assessment is that people have an aversion to instability and are actually invigorated by change when it occurs with adequate stability. Therefore, the sustainability enabled organization is able to foster ongoing and significant change while maintaining the stability of the organization, entity or process. Copyright Leith Sharp 2009

Common Causes of Instability Time and Money Attention Technology and Design Skills and Capacities Politics and Power Organizational Limitations Cognitive Limitations Lack of integration and optimization across disciplines, departments, operational components etc

Common Causes of Instability Requires a multifaceted response to remove risk of instability (perceived or real) Time and Money Attention Technology and Design Skills and Capacities Politics and Power Organizational Limitations Cognitive Limitations Lack of integration and optimization across disciplines, departments, operational components etc = = = = = = = = Business Development, Finance and Accounting Advocacy Expertise in Green Building, Energy, Transportation etc Education and Training Governance, Strategy, Alliance Building and Influence Leadership and Organizational Culture Social Marketing Techniques, Emotional Intelligence Systems Thinking

Guiding Principle: Trust Based Relationships Sustained innovation depends upon the ability of people to trust one another in the face of uncertainty and risk, to believe that they will be supported in the process of learning and discovery and to be willing to invest in mutual understanding and transparency. Therefore, the sustainability enables organization invests significant effort in fostering and maintaining a web of mutually respectful relationships across the institution. Copyright Leith Sharp 2009

Relationships provide a Powerful Stabilizing Force for Change If the average person can change the thinking of 3 people they have a relationship with over a period of 6 months and each of these people go on to do the same. 1 0 3 6 Months 9 1 Year 27 18 Months 81 2 Years 243 30 Months 729 3 Years 2,187 42 Months 6,561 4 Years 19,683 54 Months 59,049 5 Years

Guiding Principle: The Leverage Principle: Be the Rudder on the Rudder Even the biggest ships can be turned by a small force if it is directed at the point of maximum leverage.

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 A Business Model Change to Fund Management Green Collar Team Jobs

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 A Business Model Change to Fund Management Green Collar Team Jobs Green Building Operations Co-Chair Faculty, Harvard School of Public Health Prof. Jack Spengler Director, Leith Sharp Co-Chair Assoc. VP, Facilities & Environmental Services Tom Vautin 23+ Full-time Staff 30 Part-time students Green Building Design Campus Occupant Engagement Programs Environmental Procurement Residential Green Living Programs Renewable Energy HGCI Base Program Staff HGCI Courses at Harvard Extension School Sustainability The Challenge of Changing Our Institutions Green Building Design, Construction and Operations FY08 Operating Cost = $2.2million Annual Savings = $7+ million 20% Office of President and Provost & central administration sources. 80% from fee for service partnerships funded on the basis of extensive savings

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 A Business A Business Model Model to Fund for Green Collar Jobs Base Program Funding Total Full Time Staff FY01 $ 80,000 1 FY02 $264,000 4 $400,000 FY03 $648,000 8 $700,000 FY04 $890,000 11 $1.5 million Annual University Savings FY05 $857,000 11 $3 million FY06 $1,155,000 16 $5 million FY07 $1,700,000 19 $6+million FY08-FY09 $2,200,000 24+ $7+million

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 A Business Model Empowering to Fund Green Others Collar to Jobs Lead There is no problem because.the planet is an infinite source of resources with an infinite capacity to absorb our pollution There is a problem but it s not mine because..what I do has little impact on the planet, I just don t count, my influence is too small There is a problem, I am involved, I probably could do something except it s so hard I can t get the funds, I don t know how, I don t have the time, I keep forgetting, my manager doesn t seem to want it, there s no reliable alternative, it s too risky, I don t get evaluated on it etc There is a problem and I am fully engaged in working on my part of the solution in every way possible!

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 Transcend A Business Finance, Accounting Model to Fund & Budgeting Green Collar Barriers Jobs Finance and accounting systems currently incentivize and institutionalize inefficiency, silos and component optimization at the expense of larger systems optimization and best business practices. Annual budgeting processes also exclude ongoing investments in innovation and continuous improvement. Therefore, the sustainability enables organization has reformed its finance and accounting structures to drive efficiency and optimization at the systems level while purposely stimulating innovation and continuous improvement.

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 A Business Model Transcend to Fund Green Financial Collar Barriers Jobs Green Campus Loan Fund: $12 million interest-free capital for conservation projects Existing Buildings New Construction Full capital cost covered 5 year payback maximum Simple payback used Cost delta funded 10 year payback maximum Lifecycle costing used $8.5+ million lent since 2001 200+ projects 30+% average return on investment

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 Transcend Financial Barriers Sample of Simple Payback and Return on Investment by Project Type.

Green Campus Loan Fund Resource Conservation Incentive Program (RCIP) Green Campus Loan Fund for Existing Buildings Green Campus Loan Fund DOUBLED and EXPANDED to include New Construction Green Campus Loan Fund DOUBLED again 1993-1997 January 2002 July 2005 April 2006 $1.5 mil Revolving Fund 5 year maximum simple payback period $2.6 mil in loans over 5 years 34% Return on Investment Unused after 2 years due to lack of service support $3 mil Revolving Fund 5 year maximum simple payback period $6 mil Revolving Fund 5 year maximum simple payback period for existing buildings 10 year maximum payback period for new construction to fund cost difference only $12 mil Revolving Fund

Life Cycle Costing A method of project evaluation in which all costs arising from owning, operating, maintaining and ultimately disposing of a project over an agreed period are accounted for and converted into today s dollars. In short, life cycle costing allows for the consideration of medium and long term cost implications of today s decisions. When can it be used? New Construction Major Renovations Capital Projects Routine Replacements or Upgrades Day to day purchases that incur any ongoing costs

How Should LCC Be Used in the Decision Making Process?

How Should LCC Be Used in the Decision Making Process? 1. To compare different options (e.g. ground source heat pumps versus natural gas furnace) 2. To determine financially optimal efficiency level (e.g. amount of insulation) 3. To identify medium and long term savings for potential reinvestment or immediate justification of integrated design solutions

Weld Hill Research Center Seeking LEED Gold Closed loop geothermal system for heating and cooling, ventilation rates for lab space designed to 6 air changes per hour with night time set-back Department: Arnold Arboretum Building Type: Labs and Offices Size: 45,000 square feet

Lab Integrated Design and LCC Case Study: Weld Hill Ventilation Rates 1 Cubic Foot per Minute (CFM) of outside air cost about $2.20 in energy over the year at Weld Hill. Switching from 10 Air Changes per Hour(CH) to 6 ACH saves about 10,000 CFM. Results in energy savings of approximately $22,000 per year. Air Handling Units (AHU) can also be downsized. AHUs cost about $5/cfm. AHU savings is $50,000. Since peak loads are reduced, we save in well field and Heat Pump sizing. Reducing the air flow by 10,000 CFM saves us 18 tons of cooling. Saves about 4 wells and 1 HP, which nets a savings of $80,000. Switch from 10 to 6 ACH saves $130,000 first cost, $22,000 annually.

A Business Model for Cost Neutral, Climate Neutral Buildings Adopting 20 years net present value accounting framework for evaluating carbon neutrality investment and return options for each building. Track and reinvest savings from energy demand reductions to fund onsite renewable energy, fuel switching, additional efficiency efforts and carbon offsets.

Costing Case Study Building Name Department Description Age Size Occupancy Demographics Lease format Building systems and utilities Leverett Towers F & G Faculty of Arts and Sciences Complex of 2 11-story towers Built 1959; renovations every 4 years 121,697 square feet 2006 GHG emissions 1537 MTCDE 158 suites, 20 tutor apartments; 300 residents Undergraduates, graduate tutors Academic year appointments; temporary summer housing Heat/ventilation: Steam to forced air and radiant heat; Hot water: steam Air conditioning: window units Electricity: tutor kitchenette appliances Natural gas: dryers (1990-2001 only) 28

Cost Neutral Climate Neutral Building Case Study Leverett Towers Investment Summary Component % of Portfolio Investment Period MTCDE/yr Energy Conservation Measures 17% 2007-2009 255 Renewable Energy Technology (onsite) 3% 2007-2009 49 Fuel Switch 22% 2012-2020 345 Offsets 58% 2012-2020 888 Behavior Program ((2%)) 2007-2020 ((33))

Cost Neutral Climate Neutral Building Case Study Leverett Towers Investment Summary Component (Further information can be provided by Debra Shepard (dshepard@eheinc.com) % of Portfolio Investment Period MTCDE/yr Energy Conservation Measures 17% 2007-2009 255 Renewable Energy Technology (onsite) 3% 2007-2009 49 Fuel Switch 22% 2012-2020 345 Offsets 58% 2012-2020 888 Behavior Program ((2%)) 2007-2020 ((33)) Leverette Towers Financial Summary for Climate Neutrality Financial Category Net present value through 2020 Investments (ECM, RET, Fuel Switch, Behavior) ($1,068,958) Savings (ECM, RET, and Behavior) $1,142,947 Carbon Offset Purchases ($68,268) TOTAL PROGRAM Net Present Value $5,721 30

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 A Business Model to Fund Build Green New Collar Capacities Jobs

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 A Business Model to Fund Build Green New Collar Capacities Jobs There is much research to support the idea that learning is best served when motivation is intrinsic that is to say when the individual is self-motivated rather than externally motivated. Experience that has no emotional engagement are not likely to be effective in generating new mental representations. Gardener, H. (1999) The Disciplined Mind: What All Students Should Understand. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Peer to Peer Learning Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 A Business Model to Fund Peer Green to Peer Collar Programs Jobs Residential Green Living Programs: 9000+ Harvard residents. 13+% electricity reduction, 30+% recycling increase. Over $300,000 p.a savings Lab User Engagement: Fume hood competitions have generated over $400,000 in annual energy savings Peer to Peer Training Programs: Staff training each other to save energy through better building management Green Skillet Competition: 500 staff. The winning kitchen reduced electricity use by 23%

Peer to Peer Learning Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 A Business Cultural Model to Change Fund Green The Collar New Norm Jobs Occupant impacts on building operations & environmental impacts According to the EPA Individuals can affect 32% of personal ghg emissions through electricity use, waste, and transportation choices!

Peer to Peer Learning Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 A Business Cultural Model to Change Fund Green The Collar New Norm Jobs Staff Green Teams: Building Energy Competitions Social Marketing: Fostering energy conserving and recycling habits across Harvard Sustainability Pledge: 8,000+ Harvard members made their online pledge in 2007

Peer to Peer Learning Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 A Business Model Manage to Stakeholder Fund Green Collar Complexity Jobs

Peer to Peer Learning Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 A Business Model Manage to Stakeholder Fund Green Collar Complexity Jobs Simple Lighting Retrofit Project Location: student residence (~300 students) Proposed savings: Annual savings >$20,000 Payback <3 yrs Process

Unknown Complexity in Decision Making Simple Lighting Retrofit Project School HGCI Loan Fund 1 Change Agent 2 Fin Mgr (capital budget) Fin Mgr (operating budget) Facility Director Building Manager (Superintendent) House Master Vendor Sales Rep Technician Univ. Ops Maintenanc e crew House occupants (students) REP coordinator (student)

Unknown Complexity in Decision Making Simple Lighting Retrofit Project School HGCI Loan Fund 1 Change Agent 2 4 Fin Mgr (capital budget) Fin Mgr (operating budget) Facility Director Building Manager (Superintendent) House Master Vendor Sales Rep Technician 3 Univ. Ops Maintenanc e crew House occupants (students) REP coordinator (student)

Unknown Complexity in Decision Making Simple Lighting Retrofit Project School HGCI Loan Fund 1 Change Agent 2 6 4 Fin Mgr (capital budget) Fin Mgr (operating budget) Facility Director 5 Building Manager (Superintendent) House Master Vendor Sales Rep Technician 3 Univ. Ops Maintenanc e crew House occupants (students) REP coordinator (student)

Peer to Peer Learning Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 A Business Model Manage to Stakeholder Fund Green Collar Complexity Jobs Simple Lighting Retrofit Project Full Process = 3 months of constant facilitation by Green Campus Staff School HGCI Loan Fund Vendor Sales Rep Technician 3 16 20 1 19 Change Agent 15 14 10 2 6 Univ. Ops Maintenanc e crew 17 13 4 7 Fin Mgr (capital budget) Fin Mgr (operating budget) Facility Director 5 Building Manager (Superintendent) House Master 8 12 House occupants (students) REP coordinator (student) 9 11 18

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 Stabilize Change Via Ongoing Piloting & Expansion

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 Stabilize Change Via Ongoing Piloting & Expansion Biodiesel in University Shuttles Occupancy sensor driven temperature Setbacks Ground Source Heat Pumps Photovoltaic Building Mounted Wind Solar Thermal Collecting oil for Harvard Recycling truck Green Cleaning

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 Stabilize Change Via Ongoing Piloting & Expansion 2001: HGCI initiates first 3 pilot LEED projects 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 7 LEED Projects 2 Certified 5 Registered 16 LEED Projects 4 Certified 12 Registered 21 LEED Projects 5 Certified 16 Registered 26 LEED Projects 7 Certified 19 Registered 50+ LEED Projec 13 Certified 37 Registere

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 Green Building Services Building Name LEED Rating Building Name LEED Rating Aldrich Hall HBS Byerly Radcliffe Hamilton Hall HBS Wyss Hall HBS 5 Cowperthwaite St. HRES 10 Akron St. HRES Allston Science Center ADG Gallatin Hall HBS Attempting CERTIFIED Attempting SILVER GOLD Attempting GOLD Attempting GOLD Attempting GOLD Attempting GOLD Attempting GOLD Gallatin Hall HBS McCollum Hall HBS Northwest Corner HLS Rockefeller Hall Divinity Weld Hill Arnold Arboretum 2 Grant Street HRES Attempting GOLD Attempting GOLD (LEED-CI) Attempting GOLD Attempting GOLD Attempting GOLD Attempting PLATINUM (LEED-H) The HGCI Provided LEED project management for all Harvard LEED Projects: Fostering New Capacities Inhouse

Aldrich Hall LEED Silver Campus Lighting Master Plan, Preferred Parking for Fuel Efficient Vehicles, Green Cleaning Program, high performance ventilation 13 Filters, 80% C&D Waste Diversion Harvard Business School

Hamilton Hall, Harvard Business School LEED Gold Occupancy Sensor Controlled Thermostats, $370,000 of Plyboo Furnishings, Tested Low- Flow Shower Heads Before Selecting Symmons 2.0, HGCI Performed Daylight and Views Calcs. Photo by: Nathan Gauthier Photo by: Nathan Gauthier Photo by: Nathan Gauthier Photo by: Nathan Gauthier Harvard Business School

Weld Hill Research Center Seeking LEED Gold Closed loop geothermal system for heating and cooling, ventilation rates for lab space designed to 6 air changes per hour with night time set-back

46 Blackstone LEED Platinum Certified Highest modelled energy performance of any Harvard LEED building, bioswale, energy efficient elevator, ground source heat pumps, extensive use of environmentally preferred materials LEED Platinum at no added cost. The result of early commitment, good process management and an integrated design approach. University Operations Services

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 A Business Model Proving to Fund Cost Green Effectiveness Collar Jobs

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 A Business Model Proving to Fund Cost Green Effectiveness Collar Jobs What is the cost of Green Building (LEED Gold or better)?

PROJECT 1 Additional Green Costs Total Soft Costs = $2,358,275 Total Project Cost = $18,509,114 Additional Green Soft Costs = $69,724 Additional Green Hard Costs = $115,122 Green Soft Costs as % of Total = 0.38% Green Hard Costs as % of Total = 0.062%

PROJECT 1 Additional Green Soft Costs Enhanced Commissioning $4,832 Energy Modeling $13,200 Green Building Consultant $15,460 C&D Waste Consultant $34,032 LEED Certification Costs $2,200 MEP design review, recommissioning manual & verification of operator training Promotes integrated design and identifies energy savings from ECMs Guides team through sustainable design process & manages LEED effort Salvage significant quantities of materials for donation & targeting > 95% waste diversion rates Hold team member accountable & 3 rd party verification of sustainability

PROJECT 1 Additional Green Hard Costs: Energy Conservation Measures that Resulted from Soft Cost Investment Improved Building Envelope $20,971 Variable Frequency Drives $29,000 Lighting Optimization $25,000 Lighting Controls $5,625 CO2 Sensors in Cafeteria $4,000 Hot water temperature difference $2,450 Melink System $12,500 Pressure Independent Control Valves $5,576 Energy Recovery Wheel $10,000 Fan Coil Unit Fan Cycling $0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total capital cost $115,122 = %0.062 of total project cost

PROJECT 1 Energy Conservation Measures (ECM) Total ECM Cost = $115,122 Total First Year Energy Savings = $16,000 Internal Rate of Return = 17.8% ECMs pay for themselves in < 8 years Total Green Cost Premium = 1% of the total project cost

PROJECT 2 Hamilton Hall cost estimates $320K Estimated Material Cost of LEED ~ 2.5% of total project cost Estimated Energy Savings ($35,000) Annually Estimated < 10 year payback

PROJECT 3 Harvard School of Public Health LANDMARK CENTER Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Monitoring Ventilation Efficiency Low-Emitting Materials: Adhesives & Sealants Paints Carpet Furniture and Furnishings Thermal Comfort Daylight 75% of Spaces

PROJECT 3 Harvard School of Public Health Item Additional "Green" Costs Project Expenses 1 Architectural Soft Costs $ 16,000 2 LEED Certification Filing $ 22,000 3 Green Power Certificate (2 Yrs) $ 8,332 4 Commissioning $ 31,000 Additional Green Costs Total: $ 77,332 Simple Payback (Years): 0.94 Item Estimated Savings Annual 10 Year Savings Lease 1 Employee Productivity 1% (Kats) $ 52,000 $ 520,000 2 DALI Lighting vs T8 Mid-Range $ 16,274 $ 162,740 3 Displacement Ventilation System $ 14,000 $ 140,000 Potential Savings Total (14%): $ 82,274 $ 822,740

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 Continuous A Improvement: Business Model Knowledge, to Fund Green Process Collar & Jobs Infrastructure Knowledge Infrastructure Decision-Making Process

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 A Business Continuous Model Improvement to Fund Green in Infrastructure Collar Jobs Trial Recommend Trial Recommendations Trial Recommend Trial Recommendations Evaluation Design Process Evaluation Design Process Evaluation Design Process Evaluation Design Process Building Project Building Project Building Project Building Project 2002 2004 2005 2006

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 A Business Model to Fund Knowledge Green Collar Sharing Jobs www.greencampus.harvard.edu/theresource Lessons Learned and Continual Improvement

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 A Business Decision-Making Model to Fund Process Green Improvement Collar Jobs Ten commandments of Cost effective Green Building Design 1. Commitment 2. Leadership 3. Accountability 4. Process Management 5. Integrated Design 6. Energy Modeling 7. Enhanced Commissioning 8. Specifications 9. Life Cycle Costing 10. Continuous Improvement

TRADITION Decision-making PROCESS A typical process involves a linear progression from the upper management levels down to the middle management and finally the grass roots. A formal hierarchy of communication is enforced by the organization. Leaders www.aangepastbouwen.nl Managers www.hansa-klima.de Doers

Integrated Design Architects Engineers Contractors www.eere.energy.gov

Optimizing Individuals and Relationships Conventional Approach to Engagement Involves team members only when essential Integrated Process of Engagement Inclusive from the outset Less time, energy, and collaboration exhibited in early stages More decisions made by fewer people Linear process Systems often considered in isolation Limited to constrained optimization Front-loaded time and energy invested early Decisions influenced by broad team Iterative process Whole-systems thinking Allows for full optimization Diminished opportunity for synergies Emphasis on up-front costs Seeks synergies Life-cycle costing Typically finished when construction is complete Source: Roadmap for the Integrated Design Process. Prepared Busby Perkins+Will, Stantec Consulting Process continues through post-occupancy

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 A Business Model to Greening Fund Green Harvard s Collar Jobs Labs Labs: Square footage and energy use

Lab-specific Opportunities Building Operations & Design Life cycle costing Updating building plans when upgrades occur Right-sizing Modeling exhaust dispersion Ventilation requirements (air changes per hour) Occupancy schedules Engineering & controls monitoring Energy recovery for ventilation air Fume hood technology Water efficiency Low pressure drop HVAC design Day lighting Decreasing reheat energy use Lighting systems and upgrades Sensors Occupants Life cycle costing Efficiency of lab equipment Hazardous materials disposal Sharing lab equipment to reduce costs and energy consumption Lab equipment inventories Fume hood and chemical management Occupant safety & best practices training Stakeholder involvement in lab design decisions Communication between all those involved in lab design and operations

Lab-specific Opportunities Building Operations & Design Life cycle costing Updating building plans when upgrades occur Right-sizing Modeling exhaust dispersion Ventilation requirements (air changes per hour) Occupancy schedules Engineering & controls monitoring Energy recovery for ventilation air Fume hood technology Water efficiency Low pressure drop HVAC design Day lighting Decreasing reheat energy use Lighting systems and upgrades Sensors Occupants Life cycle costing Efficiency of lab equipment Hazardous materials disposal Sharing lab equipment to reduce costs and energy consumption Lab equipment inventories Fume hood and chemical management Occupant safety & best practices training Stakeholder involvement in lab design decisions Communication between all those involved in lab design and operations

Factors Affecting Air Change Rates in Lab Buildings Maximize User Intensity Lab Modulization and Control Bending Fume Hoods Set-backs Consider sash height, plug in modular hoods, diversity, and FH interconnectedness, decommissioning, recommissioning Chemical Use in Animal Labs Enhanced and Continuous Commissioning Spill Purging Controls Consider possibilities for unoccupied mode EH&S Management Protocols and Training Operations Protocols and Training Safety Cabinets Consider Aircuity connection, alarming only Air Quality Monitoring FH-driven, ACH-driven, or Thermal Loaddriven Ventilation Decouple Ventilation from HVAC Positive/Negative Pressure Office/Garden to Lab Cascading Occupant Engagement and Education Chemical Storage Strategy (snorkels, cabinets) Area-based vs Volumebased Ventilation Chemical Inventory and Control Plan Consider people and information systems

Lab-specific Opportunities Building Operations & Design Life cycle costing Updating building plans when upgrades occur Right-sizing Modeling exhaust dispersion Ventilation requirements (air changes per hour) Occupancy schedules Engineering & controls monitoring Energy recovery for ventilation air Fume hood technology Water efficiency Low pressure drop HVAC design Day lighting Decreasing reheat energy use Lighting systems and upgrades Sensors Occupants Life cycle costing Efficiency of lab equipment Hazardous materials disposal Sharing lab equipment to reduce costs and energy consumption Lab equipment inventories Fume hood and chemical management Occupant safety & best practices training Stakeholder involvement in lab design decisions Communication between all those involved in lab design and operations

The Challenge - Labs Energy Use in Harvard Buildings All Other Buildings 61% of energy, 84% of sq ft Lab Buildings 39% of energy, 16% of sq ft Building Occupant Behavior significantly influences energy use: Equipment use Purchasing decisions Hours of operation

The Opportunity Fume Hoods Fume Hoods at Harvard cost $1,800-$3,000 each per year in energy costs. ~400 hoods are VAV and thousands of $ energy is wasted because the hoods are left open when not in use. **Example of connection between occupant behavior & building operations**

The Shut the Sash Campaign Our Goal: Encourage researchers to close the fume hood sash to reduce energy waste. Medical School: Pre-campaign: Post-campaign: 12 inches 2.4 inches Chem. Dept: 27% reduction in CFM (DDC controls data) Total: Saving $188,000 per year energy costs

How Do You Change Behavior? Social Sciences research shows that INFORMATION alone is not always enough to influence BEHAVIOR. Community Based Social Marketing Based on behavioral psychology research Excellent resource: Fostering Sustainable Behavior by Doug McKenzie-Mohr & William Smith

How Do You Change Behavior? Our Campaign Plan 1. Identify Barriers 2. Design Campaign: Use Social Marketing a. Prompts b. Incentives c. Communication techniques 3. Monitor results 4. Continuous Improvement

1. Identify Barriers I thought we were not supposed to close the sash below the line on the inspection sticker We hardly ever use our fume hood, how can it be using so much energy? I guess I just forgot to close it

2. Use Social Marketing Prompts: Put magnets on each hood, clear instructions close to point of contact

2. Use Social Marketing Incentives: Held a contest with Wine & Cheese Party prize competitive spirit at Harvard catch busy lab occupant attention Events are outreach opportunity

2. Use Social Marketing Communicate in understandable terms In 2004 the CO2 emissions from energy use in the WAB building was equivalent to the emissions of 1,900 cars driven an average amount in a year. Many fume hoods use the same amount of energy as 3½ houses!!

2. Use Social Marketing Provide Feedback & Use Personal Contact

Hood exhaust (ft3/min) 3. Monitoring With Exhaust Data Trend data downloadable from Siemens Total CFM for Park Lab, added to Shut the Sash in January 09 3500 December 08 March 09 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2/11/08 2/21/08 2/31/08 1/10/09 1/20/09 1/30/09 2/9/09 2/19/09 3/1/09

3. Monitoring Without Exhaust Data: Walk-through visual audits Inches open = sash height

4. Follow-up Continuous Improvement Continue monitoring & ensure behavior continues after contest. THIS HOOD SASH WAS LEFT OPEN OVERNIGHT. Closing it would save $1,500 a year (enough to heat an average home) and 10,600 pounds of CO 2 emissions. A closed hood is also safer for you and others in the lab. Please remember to shut the sash. Thank you! Building Manager Date

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 Forums for Engagement and Leadership

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 Forums for Engagement and Leadership Lab Sustainability Assessments Vision Share best practices Optimize resource conservation without compromising research Who s Involved Lab Sustainability Reps Lab Manager/contact Green Labs Coordinator (full time, to ensure follow up) Approach Obtain Approval Have the lab assess its own practices Conduct a visit and interview Follow-up to help the lab set goals and address them

Lab Sustainability Reps Role: the experts on the ground on sustainable lab practices at Harvard, acting as a resource for labs that wish to make their practices more sustainable Attributes Background as lab researchers Paid & volunteer interns Variety of academic backgrounds Actively enrolled students and lab professionals Benefits Credibility, understanding Accountability, follow-up Cross fertilization of ideas between departments, knowledge of specific lab settings Have developed relationships with many professors, providing a foot in the door

Lab Sustainability Opportunities Opportunities Pringle Pearson Langmuir Betley Abzhanov Whitesides Further evaluation of local exhaust x x Shut the Sash x x x Fixing drafts/ window issues x x Temperature setpoint issues x Pipet tip box recycling x x x x Defrosting/ organizing freezers x x x x Appliances to put on power strip or timer x x x x PCR Machine Energy Saving Default x x Buy from stockroom freezer (shipped in bulk) x x

Harvard Green Labs Certification (in development) Coupled with follow-up from our assessment process Lab members will sign a pledge to affirm their commitment Check-ins for continuous improvement

Lab Sustainability Kits 2 Lab equipment stickers 3 Lab recycling signs 4 Shut the fume hood sash reminder magnets 1 Handout on resource efficient lab equipment and supplies

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 Leveraging A Business Leadership Model to (Conducting Fund Green Collar the Voices) Jobs

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 Leveraging A Business Leadership Model to (Conducting Fund Green Collar the Voices) Jobs Grass Roots Students, building Managers, facilities staff, project managers, custodial, transport & procurement staff CONFIDENCE & CAPACITY Evidence Confidence Business base for green campus organization Top Level Leadership President, Provost, Deans, VP s Upper Middle Management 2 nd Level Deans, Associate VP s, CFOs, COO - Planning AUTHORITY Legitimacy Priority Mood/culture Goals SYSTEMS INTEGRATION Capital Approvals Systems Finance & Accounting University Contracts

Harvard-Wide Green Building Guidelines: Development Process 2001-4: LEED piloted and numerous projects underway 2004: President Summers: Approves Sustainability Principles including commitment to integrate sustainability into capital approvals process. 2004-7: LEED project experience expanded across University 2007 Feb: University Construction Managers Council requests draft guidelines 2007 March Oct: Guidelines developed by HGCI and interfaculty committee over 11 meetings

Harvard-Wide Green Building Guidelines: Development Process 2007 Oct-Dec Financial Deans: Approval Capital Projects Review Committee: Approval University Construction Managers Council: Approval Administrative Deans: Approval University Construction Managers Council : Approve final draft President Faust: Notified of completion and adoption

Governance Processes Need to Allow more Bottomup and Horizontal Leadership in Decision-making Collaborative Governance Models Dynamic Governance Models

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 A Business Fostering Model to Institutional Fund Green Commitment Collar Jobs

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 A Business Fostering Model to Institutional Fund Green Commitment Collar Jobs Only 5% of what we do is consciously driven and the rest is driven by habit and automatic response. Our minds are constantly working to convert conscious efforts into unconscious habits ASAP. It s possible that our organizations reflect our own cognitive tendencies and that what we are working to transform is largely unconscious of itself, requiring a strategic effort to locate the conscious capacities needed to transform new practices into habit. The sustainability enabled organization has mastered effective strategies for diagnosing the deeper institutional drivers at play and institutionalizing new commitments and practices as soon as they are proven effective, minimizing dependence upon human memory or conscious attention. 5% Conscious Behavior

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 A Business Fostering Model to Institutional Fund Green Commitment Collar Jobs HARVARD Green Building Guidelines Capital projects exceeding $5 million will seek minimum LEED Silver certification. Harvard University requires a number of LEED credits to be treated as pre-requisites An Integrated Design approach is to be adopted. Life Cycle Costing assessment is to be conducted throughout the project Energy modeling is required Adopt an ongoing commissioning approach for the life of the building.

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 A Business Fostering Model to Institutional Fund Green Commitment Collar Jobs Sustainable Design Guidelines for Allston Development ALLSTON SUSTAINABILITY GOALS LEED Gold for All Buildings % Reduction in Building Energy Use % Less GHG per Heating, Cooling and Power related MMBTU than 2006 % of Renewable Energy % Reduction in Potable Water Use Treat / Use % of Stormwater On-site % of Parking Underground Bus and Shuttle Stops w/in 1 Minute of All Buildings Diesel Emissions Controls on All Construction Vehicles % of Landscaping w/native Species

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 A Business Fostering Model to Institutional Fund Green Commitment Collar Jobs President Faust Approved Harvard s GHG Reduction Goals in July 2008. Initial goal of 30% below 2006 levels by 2016 (including campus growth which takes the total reduction in 2016 to over 50%) Every Four years additional goals to be developed Strive towards climate neutrality as soon as possible

Harvard s Green Campus Initiative 2000-2008 A Business Model A to Systems Fund Green Thinking Collar Future Jobs A systems thinking approach is essential for achieving the cost effective and large scale organizational reform necessary to achieve and maintain environmental sustainability. The sustainability enabled organization has integrated systems thinking and systems leadership into its overall organizational life. Copyright Leith Sharp 2009

In a Systems Thinking World Organizational systems will be responsive to the boundaries provided by the Earth s living systems.

In a Systems Thinking World We will design with systems and synergies at the forefront

Dockside Green Victoria, Canada

Interactions Between All Systems System Synergies

In a Systems Thinking World The very way in which decisions are made in organizations will be profoundly transformed.

Systems Thinking Produces a Process Focus Organizational systems, like living systems develop and evolve. Therefore, understanding them requires understanding renewal, change, and transformation. In practice, this shift can result in shifting emphasis to how we solve problems rather than on whether we get the "right" answer. In communities, it can mean that the process for making decisions is often as important as the decisions themselves. Source: The Center for Ecoliteracy

Systems Thinking Addresses Relationships According to Fritjof Capra, systems thinking requires thinking in terms of relationships, connectedness, and context. An ecosystem is not just a collection of species, but is a community. Communities, whether ecosystems or human systems, are made up of sets, or networks, of relationships. In the systems view, the "objects" of study are networks of relationships. Source: The Center for Ecoliteracy

In a Systems Thinking World Components of the financial system (front cost, operating costs, disposal costs, staff costs) will be optimized overall rather than set in competition with one another.

In a Systems Thinking World Leadership contributions (influence and authority), like components of a leadership system, will be optimized through leverage, synergies, feedback and overall connectivity.

In a Systems Thinking World Governance structures will allow more interdisciplinary, bottom-up and horizontal engagement in decision-making

In a Systems Thinking World We will ensure stability during change and the journey from the pilot phase to wide-scale implementation will be deliberately guided rather than left to chance.

In a Systems Thinking World The power of human relationships to foster transformation will be thoroughly utilized

In a Systems Thinking World The relationships between people will be optimized to produce the best contributions from both individuals and the collaborations between the individuals

Systems Thinking and Change Agency In The Necessary Revolution: Senge et al There is nothing magic about seeing larger systems in order to encourage strategic choices; the magic come from people actually doing it, and truly learning how to think together in the process. In a world shaped by organizations and networks of organizations, individual systems thinkers are, ultimately, of little significance.the systems intelligence needed to deal with the challenges we face as the Industrial age comes to an end is collective and must be built through working together at many levels, within and beyond organizations, in teams and networks that span industries, communities and global supply chains. But collaborations often fail not enough time invested, not enough trust, too much conflict avoidance, not enough shared vision. Building the capacity to collaborate is hard work and needs to be valued and seen as such.

In a Systems Thinking World People are reflective, secure and open to learning. They encourage interactions for the purpose of shared discovery. They feel valued for what they co-create, facilitate and support as much as they are for what they do themselves.

Can the future of Industrial Ecology be to revolutionize production, consumption AND decision-making process?

Integrating Sustainability Into The Campus Insights from the Harvard Green Campus Initiative Case Study 2000-2008 Leith Sharp, Harvard University Visiting Scholar, Harvard School of Public Health Faculty, Harvard Extension School Independent Consultant, Strategic Campus Sustainability Photo by Ben Ponte Lsharp@hsph.harvard.edu Leithsharp@yahoo.co.uk