Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Organisation et Management. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Organisation et Management. Afficher tous les articles

samedi 4 mai 2013

Mayer boosts Yahoo parental leave, escalates baby-benefits arms race


Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer, who clamped down on employees working from home, has made a peace offering of sorts to working parents: Female employees will get 16 weeks paid maternity leave when they give birth. New dads will get eight paid weeks.
Parents who adopt a child or have a child through surrogacy will each get eight weeks paid maternity leave.
This represents a doubling of maternity benefits at Yahoo and brings the Sunnyvale-based tech company's policy closer to those of its rivals at Google and Facebook. NBC Bay Area was first to report this news.
Google offers 18 to 22 weeks of paid maternity and paternity leave to parents who have a child through child birth. Google offers seven weeks paid leave to parents who adopt or have a child through surrogacy.
Google offers parents $500 in "baby bonding bucks" to spend on take-out food after a baby is born. Google offers what it calls "near-site" child care and backup child care for when regular child care falls through.
Facebook offers four months paid leave to both mothers and fathers. Facebook also offers its employees $4,000 in cash to spend on a new baby per family.
Facebook also gives employees $3,000 per year to defer some of the costs of daycare or a nanny, but Facebook doesn't have onsite childcare at its offices in Silicon Valley or Austin, Texas.
Marissa Mayer built a nursery next to her office for her own newborn son, born shortly after she joined the company last year.
Source :  bizjournals.com, Lindsay Riddell, May 1, 2013

mardi 30 avril 2013



SUMMARY:
Businesses regularly evolve to meet modern new challenges, so why do they rely on the same old military-style organizational hierarchies? Here are a few companies that have adopted new structures to try to inspire workers and make the companies more agile.
While most of us focus our attention on the technology and product innovation coming out of Silicon Valley, one of the most significant innovations of our time will come not from digital technology, but from the development of new ways of organizing ourselves to work together.
Despite radical advances in almost every aspect of technology and business over the past century, nearly every company in the Western world, from fledgling startup to global enterprise, still uses an organizational governance structure that was invented in the Industrial Age (and was a vestige of the Military Age before that). That is, a hierarchical, command-and-control structure with human “resources” expected to act as increasingly specialized, efficient cogs in a machine designed to do roughly the same thing over and over again.
A few pioneering companies are starting to experiment with abandoning these rigid old governing structures in favor of more dynamic ones that foster increased individual creativity, autonomy and flexibility among team members,  while also helping companies to more quickly and effectively adapt to changes in the external environment.
While working with technology company executives as CEO coach and culture development consultant for Unleashed for the past 5 years, I’ve been struck by the difference it makes when leaders can challenge old paradigms. Here are three new operating systems forward-thinking leaders have adopted that are showing signs of success:

Managing by “pod”

Hiten Shah, founder of KISSMetrics, is an expert in the lean startup methodology. But he didn’t stop at thinking through how to guide KISSMetrics to build-measure-learn its way to a successful product. He began experimenting with the organizational structure itself. Rather than the traditional vertical groups (marketing, product, engineering), he created autonomous pods with at least one person from each discipline. Each pod is essentially a startup unto itself, with its own scope of product and its own set of metrics and goals. Pods have rotating leaders, so there’s no one person with the title of manager.
After their first experiment with pods, workers gathered feedback about how well the pods were working as an organizing structure, and then tweaked and re-configured the pods – both in the mix of roles and product scope — to ensure that teams were not duplicating efforts. KISSMetrics continues to experiment with different configurations.

Welcome to “Holacracy”

At the recent Wisdom 2.0 Conference, Twitter and Obvious Corp founder Ev Williams talked about how Obvious is using Holacracy to design and “dynamically steer” the organization. Holacracy is a new social technology that changes how an organization is structured, how decisions are made and how power is distributed throughout the company (it has its roots in the Agile Programming movement  and was invented by Brian Robertson, an agile software programmer).  Instead of top-down authority, a Holacracy places the organizational power in a set of explicit processes and structures designed to achieve the company’s purpose.
In a Holacracy, every role in the organization has an explicit, documented purpose and set of accountabilities, and roles exist separately from the individuals who happen to be filling them at the time. The core operating processes include two distinct meetings that occur on a regular (typically weekly) basis: Tactical (actions) and Governance (structure), each with a clear set of procedures. The Governance meeting is what most distinguishes Holacracy: it allows for explicitly changing the organizational structure on a weekly basis!
If a project or set of tasks is proposed that does not clearly fit into the explicit accountabilities of any current role in the organization, then the Governance meeting will resolve the ambiguity by assigning it to a particular role. This leads to much more clarity throughout the organization around who owns what, and who makes which decisions. Moreover, it is a dynamic process that allows the team to continue to evolve as the external world demands new projects and tasks that were not previously envisioned.

Zero governance

Valve is game development company with more thanb 300 employees and a string of successful, groundbreaking releases. It also has a per employee profitability that the company claims tops Google, Microsoft and many other high-flying tech companies. And yet the company literally has no formal management or hierarchy at all. Last year, Valve’s employee handbook was leaked, giving us a view into the unique way that the organization is run.
At Valve, no one tells employees what to do (or what not to do) and there are no reviews, no job titles or promotions. Leadership of any project is determined in an organic way by whoever steps up. Raises and bonuses are based on peer reviews. If a team member decides one day to do something different, he or she simply moves their stuff and gets going. The company proudly proclaims that it has been boss free since 1996.
Upon joining Valve, industry veteran Michael Abrash wrote a blog post about his experience, which gives us insight into founder Gabe Newell’s reasoning behind Valve’s structure: ”What matters is being first and bootstrapping your product into a positive feedback spiral with a constant stream of creative innovation. Hierarchical management doesn’t help with that, because it bottlenecks innovation through the people at the top of the hierarchy, and there’s no reason to expect that those people would be particularly creative about coming up with new products that are dramatically different from existing ones – quite the opposite, in fact.”
Dave Kashen is co-founder of Unleashed, a leadership and culture development firm for startups. He also writes the awesome culture blog. Follow Dave on Twitter @awesomeculture.
Source : http://gigaom.com/2013/04/27

vendredi 30 novembre 2012

Les pôles d'innovation se multiplient en dehors de la Silicon Valley


digital world map and laptop

Si la Silicon Valley est depuis des années le poumon de l'innovation dans le monde, d'autres écosystèmes de startups, nouveaux ou déjà plus matures, la rattrapent. L'entreprenariat est en plein essor, et entraîne l'apparition et le développement d'écosystèmes locaux, dynamiques et compétitifs.
Si la Silicon Valley a longtemps été le principal lieu de création de startups, il semblerait que cette tendance touche à sa fin : ces dernières années ont vu une « explosion » d’entrepreneurs et avec, « l’émergence de nouveaux écosystèmes de startups dans le monde » explique le Startup Genome dans un rapport intitulé Startup Ecosystem Report 2012. L’étude, basée sur des données collectées auprès de plus de 50.000 startups, présente un classement des 20 écosystèmes les plus dynamiques du monde. 7 indicateurs sont utilisés pour les évaluer: l’indice de production (quantifie l'activité des startups), les opportunités de financement, la performance des startups, l'état d'esprit, la caractère disruptif des écosystèmes, l’aide aux startups (mentors, network) et le nombre de talents qualifiés.

Des écosystèmes prometteurs ou déjà matures
Parmi les 6 premiers écosystèmes de startups de l’index Global, 5 sont nord américains : la Silicon Valley arrive en tête, suivie de Tel Aviv, Los Angeles, Seattle, New York et Boston. Toronto et Vancouver arrivent en 8è et 9è position du classement. Pour l’Europe, c’est Londres qui est en tête (7è position au classement général) suivie par Paris (11è) Mouscou (14è) et Berlin (15è). Sao Paulo est le premier écosystème d’Amérique Latine (13 au classement général), avec Santiago (20è). Waterloo, Singapour, Melbourne et Bangalore arrivent en 16è, 17è, 18è et 19è positions. De grandes disparités distinguent ces écosystèmes les uns des autres, et en font des environnements variés. D’après le rapport, les villes qui se distinguent le plus de la Silicon Valley ont les meilleures chances de succès, puisqu’elles seront en mesure de faire de leurs spécificités un avantage compétitif.

De fortes disparités les distinguent
Boston, Tel Aviv et Vancouver ressemblent fortement à la Silicon Valley. Toutes présentent, globalement, des indices de production, de financement et de talents élevés. Par opposition, Moscou, Sao Paulo et Sydney sont les écosystèmes les plus éloignés de la Silicon Valley, et ont tendance à avoir des indices de performance, de production et de financement relativement faibles. Toronto, Chicago et Paris sont des environnements qui offrent un soutien de qualité aux startups, qui présentent un fort indice de performance, et des indices de production et de talents moyens. En revanche, ce sont des écosystèmes relativement peu innovants ou disruptifs. Syndney, Melbourne et Los Angeles forment le top 3 des écosystèmes les plus disruptifs, tandis que Vancouver, Londres, Santiago et Sao Paulo ont le meilleur état d’esprit.

Source : L'atelier

mercredi 26 septembre 2012

Google for Entrepreneurs va soutenir les start-up du monde

hausse jose alves fotolia
Google regroupe sous cette bannière tous ses programmes de soutien aux entrepreneurs. Il s'en servira aussi pour leur fournir ses produits.
Publié le 25 septembre 2012, 14h00
Google annonce sur son blog une nouvelle initiative mondiale destinée à promouvoir l'esprit entrepreneurial au sein des communautés locales. D'une part, Google for Entrepreneurs regroupera les dizaines de programmes et de partenariats soutenant start-up et entrepreneurs qui impliquent déjà Google, tels que Le Camping à Paris, Women 2.0 à San Francisco ou iHub au Kenya. D'autre part, Google entend utiliser cette plateforme pour fournir ses outils et produits aux entrepreneurs du monde entier. Le géant du Web estime à 400 millions le nombre d'entrepreneurs dans 54 pays.

Source: Le Journal du Net

vendredi 31 août 2012

Harvard, Berkeley et le MIT lancent une plate-forme mondiale d'e-learning gratuite

Les universités de Harvard, du MIT et de Berkeley se sont associées pour créer une plate-forme de cours gratuits sur Internet, accessible à tous.
Cérémonie de remise de diplômes à Harvard - AFP
Cérémonie de remise de diplômes à Harvard - AFP
Vous aviez toujours rêvé de prendre des cours à Harvard, au MIT, à Berkeley ? Dès la rentrée 2012-2013, cela sera possible. Vous n'aurez plus qu'à allumer votre ordinateur. Ces trois universités américaines, parmi les plus prestigieuses au monde, se sont associées pour créer une plate-forme de cours à distance gratuite sur Internet baptisée «plate-forme edx», en investissant dans le projet 60 millions de dollars.
Harvard et le MIT ont annoncé le lancement du projet en mai, Berkeley les a rejoints fin juillet et déjà, plus de 120 collèges et universités veulent rejoindre leurs trois grandes soeurs dans l'aventure. «Edx confère une opportunité sans précédent d'étendre considérablement notre portée mondiale, en faisant de la recherche de pointe sur un système d'éducation plus efficace et en étendant au Web l'accès à un enseignement supérieur de qualité» s'est félicité le président d'Harvard Drew Faust.
Le site propose des vidéos, des contrôles de connaissances en ligne (avec correction immédiate), une section questions-réponses, et des laboratoires virtuels. Parmi le catalogue de formations, figure par exemple le cours d'introduction à l'informatique délivré par Harvard. Ce cours doit être suivi entre le 15 octobre et le 15 avril, aucun pré-requis n'étant exigé. Mais il est demandé de consacrer entre 15 et 20 heures à chacun des neuf cours de l'enseignement, qui s'achèvera sur deux quizz et un projet final.

Démocratisation des études supérieures

Les étudiants qui auront reçu de « bonnes notes » seront habilités à recevoir un certificat de réussite. Ce dernier ne sera cependant pas délivré sous le nom de Harvard, du MIT ou de Berkeley, et sera payant. Le principe retenu est en effet la gratuité des cours, tandis que les examens diplômants sont payants.
Mais les universités en ligne souhaitent maintenir ce prix du diplôme à un niveau « assez faible ». Démocratiser l'accès aux études supérieures dans un pays où leur coût est totalement prohibitif est précisément un des objectifs des concepteurs du programme. «Pour qui veut, n'importe où, n'importe quand» tel est le slogan de la plate-forme, qui est en partie financée par des structures philanthropiques,dont la fondation Bill Gates.

Développement du e-learning

Dans le sillage d'edx, l'e-learning est déjà un succès aux Etats-Unis. Les candidats aux universités en ligne représentent à ce jour 10% de la population étudiante américaine. Face à cette révolution en marche, certaines grandes universités « historiques » se font d'ailleurs dépasser en nombre d'étudiants par leurs homologues virtuelles. L'Université d'Etat d'Arizona a ainsi décerné deux fois moins de diplômes que l'Université de Phoenix (Arizona), qui fonctionne en e-learning (2,075 contre 5,976).
L'Université de Phoenix s'est en effet considérablement développée via la Web. Alors qu'elle ne délivrait que 72 diplômes de e-learning en 2001, elle a presque passé la barre des 6000 diplômes en 2011. «Nous ne devrions pas être étonnés par ces succès, car tout le secteur va dans cette direction» estime Robert Pianta, doyen d'une université en Virginie interrogé par Techcrunch.
Au sein de ce mouvement, le projet edx promet d'être une belle réussite, un premier galop d'essai démontrant à lui seul le potentiel de la plate-forme. Le MIT s'était lancé en décembre dernier dans l'aventure des cours en open-source sur Internet, avant finalement de s'associer à Harvard pour fonder edx. Dans le cadre de ce projet pilote, Anant Agarwal, le directeur du laboratoire d'informatique et d'intelligence artificielle du MIT -à présent président d'edx- avait donné un cours en ligne de mars à juin. Cette session « test » avait rassemblé... plus de 150.000 personnes.

Source : Les Echos

jeudi 31 mai 2012

Les jeux sérieux favorisent l’entreprenariat, notamment chez les digital natives


Les nouvelles générations imprégnées par les jeux-vidéos sont parfois peu réceptives aux méthodes pédagogiques traditionnelles. C’est pourquoi les serious games peuvent être une solution pour leur inculquer un savoir de façon ludique, notamment celui de l’entreprenariat.
A l’occasion de la quatrième édition du salon e-virtuoses qui se tenait à Valenciennes du 23 au 24 mai, l'une des conclusions que l'on pouvait tirer, c'est que les jeux sont définitivement un moyen de former et d'inciter les étudiants à l’entreprendrait, grâce à des simulations. C’est le cas, par exemple du jeu Kompany proposé par OUAT Entertainment que nous avions déjà évoqué. Disponible sur Facebook, il permet aux étudiants de découvrir les différentes étapes de la création et du management d’une entreprise. Le joueur, qui incarne un entrepreneur, découvre puis se familiarise avec le vocabulaire de l’entreprise. Dans ce jeu à visée pédagogique, les amis d’un joueur le stimulent en l’interrogeant sur ses connaissances grâce à des quiz. Montant sa propre entreprise, le joueur est donc confronté à différents besoins : électricité, informatique, ou encore main d’œuvre. Ces besoins lui sont fournis virtuellement par de vraies entreprises partenaires qui financent le jeu. Elles apportent crédibilité et réalisme grâce à des mises en situation proches du réel. Des missions attribuées au joueur lui permettent de découvrir ces partenaires qui lui proposent des offres d’emplois. Une manière de s’immiscer dans la vie des étudiants sans s’imposer et de découvrir des talents potentiels.
Ce jeu est loin d’être le seul à avoir fait le choix de s’implanter sur les réseaux sociaux, fortement appréciés de la génération Y. C’est le cas, par exemple, d’Happy Life, un serious game produit par HumanoGames,qui promeut et encourage le microcrédit tout en connectant les joueurs de Facebook à de vrais entrepreneurs. "Le microcrédit est un prêt basé sur la confiance attribuée à des entrepreneurs qui n’ont pas accès aux prêts bancaires classiques, que l’on suit, accompagne et encadre", m'expliquait Yann Kerhuel, producteur associé chez HumanoGames. "Aujourd’hui 200 millions d’entrepreneurs dans le monde n’ont pas accès aux prêts solidaires".
Le jeu, qui possède déjà 300 000 adeptes, consiste à gérer un commerce et à se familiariser avec les principes du microcrédit. Avec l’argent récolté, le joueur effectue des micro-crédits virtuels qui nécessitent d’utiliser la monnaie fictive : le HappyCash. Grâce à cet argent, il développe également son univers personnel (maison, jardin, amis, etc.). Cette activité s'adapte à l'intérêt des digital natives, friands de ces échanges d’objets virtuels mobilisant leurs véritables amis.
Enfin, ce jeu en ligne permet au joueur de financer gratuitement de vrais entrepreneurs grâce à la monnaie virtuelle. En effet, des projets proposés par des entrepreneurs à la recherche de micro-crédit lui sont présentés à travers des fiches comportant le nom, le pays, une photographie de l’entrepreneur, une explication de son projet et ses besoins financier. Ainsi, un joueur intéressé par l’un de ces projets, et sensibilisé au fonctionnement du microcrédit, peut décider de participer à son financement. Lorsqu’un entrepreneur obtient la totalité du montant recherché en HappyCash, celui-ci est alors financé en monnaie réelle par un partenaire privé d’HumanoGames, dont l’activité consiste à proposer aux internautes d’effectuer des prêts à des entrepreneurs et de suivre leur activité
SOURCE : http://www.atelier.net/blog/2012/05/30/jeux-serieux-favorisent-entreprenariat-notamment-chez-digital-natives

mercredi 15 février 2012

Greentech Startups Require Gravity-Bending CEOs

Greentech Startups Require Gravity-Bending CEOs

“For successful cleantech companies -- and there have been 23, if success is defined as having gone public on a major U.S. [stock] exchange  the average time to go public was nine years,” said Matt Trevithick of Venrock at a recent TiE (formerly The Indus Entrepreneurs) Energy event. “Entrepreneurs in cleantech have to have extraordinary patience. This is a 10-year journey just to get started.”

“Maybe the notion of four-year option packages is obsolete [for cleantech]. That is from the IT space,” continued Trevithick.
 
The TiE event brought together venture capitalists and entrepreneurs with roots in the Indus region (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal) for a frank discussion on opportunities -- and pitfalls -- in greentech.
 
“We are used to companies that are powered by Moore’s Law that sell into an entrepreneurial environment,” said Bob Walker of Sierra Ventures. “Intel, Google, Samsung, and LG [all] have an entrepreneurial core. They’ve got to come up with the next cell phone or display technology. These are industries where if you miss a product cycle or two, you are dead.”
 
“A lot of the industries that we consider cleantech don’t operate that way,” continued Walker. “No [employee] at a municipal water plant is going to lose their job because they didn’t buy the latest technology. These people have one goal in mind: to retire, get their pension, and not make a mistake that gets them fired. If there is a new technology, [they think] ‘Let somebody else buy it; we’ll wait five years and maybe we’ll buy it then.’”
 
To succeed, greentech startups -- and particularly energy efficiency companies -- must have business models that facilitate market adoption.
 
“I worked as a facilities engineer for a couple of years,” said Rachel Sheinbein of CMEA. “We would see a lot of things that would reduce water use or energy use. [But] it was very hard. There is a principal-agent [problem]. You need cap-ex spending to see op-ex savings and those are different budgets and different motivations. […] The business model becomes [even] more important if you are going after sustainability or efficiency.”
 
“Solar is an example of an industry that has innovated incredibly rapidly to figure how out to deploy, going from direct sales to leases and community solar,” said Nety Krishna of Redpoint Ventures.
 
In addition to financing innovation, participants suggested that greentech companies should consider developing aspirational products. For example, a Tesla Roadster or Model S electric car.
 
“Hybrid vehicles are a compromise and that may be dominated by Toyota and General Motors. But an all-electric vehicle is aspirational and is the basis of a disruptive business. That is Tesla,” said Trevithick. “Tesla received about the same size loan guarantee, as did Solyndra. Tesla is a three-billion-dollar company today. Tesla is a success story. Make aspirational products. That is how you make margins.”
 
The relative importance of margins, however, is a source of debate.
 
“Cleantech entrepreneurs have forgotten … that most of the money in venture capital has been made on products that have 50 percent to 70 percent margins,” said Trevithick. “The challenge in cleantech is that you are shipping hardware, an industrial category. How do you get beyond a 20 percent to 30 percent gross margin business [that] does not have very high multiples on sales or earnings?”
 
“I am not going to put the bar at 50 percent gross margins. That is high,” said Sheinbein. “If [cleantech] companies are going to exit through acquisition, they need to be accretive. They are more likely to be accretive through EBITDA. I am looking for [companies] being accretive, more than a certain percentage gross margin.”
 
Across the board, venture capitalists agreed about the paramount importance of a startup’s team.
 
“After seven and a half years as a venture investor and 10 years as an entrepreneur, I have come to a Zen-like appreciation of the importance of the team. It is really the CEO. Each cleantech success has had a gravity-bending CEO that could cause improbable things to happen and almost will them into existence,” said Trevithick.
 
“For most of the successful cleantech companies -- defined again by an IPO on a U.S. exchange -- the team that was present at the Series A played critical roles at the post-IPO company,” continued Trevithick. “In Venrock’s experience across all sectors ... in 70 percent to 80 percent of cases, the team that was present and gave the pitch when the first check was written was the team that rang the bell at NASDAQ.”
 
After building their team, founders should be very careful not to overcapitalize. Don’t take every dollar VCs offer, panel members cautioned.
 
“Companies that are capital-efficient, disciplined, and bootstrapped are going to be able to get favorable returns,” said John Robison, of NGEN Partners. “We have seen that from companies that were acquired three or four years ago in the smart building space, Gridlogix and Richards-Zeta, where the founders were very shrewd with when they chose to sell their business before they took on too much capital.”
 
“[In recent years,] there are companies in the data center space that have been very capital-efficient and have been able to virtually hold off on taking on additional VC money,” added Robison. “Some of their competitors perhaps -- only time will tell -- overcapitalized, [which] will make it harder for the investors and the founding team to realize their financial dreams.”
 
Similarly, participants indicated that venture capitalists should not monopolize even their most promising deals. Instead, they should share deals with colleagues at other firms.
 
“I would syndicate a lot more than I did [if I could redo the past few years]. VCs are motivated by two things: fear and greed. One of them is ascendant at any time. I think it is very important to balance,” said Krishna. “When you come across a company that you think is fantastic and you have a change to take a big share, you do, not thinking that down the road, it is better have more people at the table to manage risk.”
 
Increasingly, VCs are able to share risk with large corporations.
 
“We are seeing a lot of companies across very different sectors [become] interested in building relationships with venture firms and their portfolio companies,” said Sheinbein. Large companies “will continue to come in, everyone from General Mills to Delta Electronics to all the large chemical companies and consumer products companies. […] These companies have money on their balance sheet, are interested in getting into [the cleantech sector], and have very different timelines than the venture community.”
 
Indeed, when thinking about environmental innovation, it is important to consider not only venture-backed companies, but also corporate initiatives.
 
“Five years ago, very few companies were interested in biodegradable or bio-compostable goods,” said Krishna. “But look at what Coke and Pepsi are doing today. They have completely bought in to the concept, partly because it is green and partly because it is cheaper. Those things are happening, but they did not make a venture company a billion dollars, so you do not hear about them.”
 
But not every greentech opportunity will be attractive to either venture or corporate investors.
 
“We looked at residential energy efficiency plays. We hired a business school student to count them for us,” said Venrock’s Trevithick. “He got to 108 companies in residential energy management, which led me to believe that it is easy to start a company there, but most of those companies will not make any money. We didn’t make an investment because most of those businesses will not make any money.”
 
The profitable web startups you do hear about, the Facebooks of the world, are making raising capital for greentech startups more challenging.
 
“The Groupons, the Facebooks and the LinkedIns -- and all the stuff going on with cloud computing -- are incredibly capital-efficient companies. With a small amount of capital, [investors] get to see if the company is going to succeed. That is who your competitors are if you are [a cleantech entrepreneur] trying to raise money,” said Walker. “Even those of us who are pushing cleantech deals have to compete with our [venture capital] partners for resources in our funds.”
 
***
 
Yoni Cohen has worked for greentech venture capital firms in San Francisco and Israel and reported about environmental innovation for numerous publications.


Source : GreenTech Media

7 ways to unleash game-changing greentech innovation


7 ways to unleash game-changing greentech innovation
The key to unleashing the power of innovation in new ventures is whole systems integrated design, the modern champion of which is Amory Lovins of Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI).  Most engineering students are taught to focus on optimizing parts of systems, but rarely encouraged to look at the system as a whole.  Unfortunately, the focus on components leads designers to (as Lovins says) “pessimize the system”.
RMI has created a set of 17 principles for doing whole systems integrated design, from which I’ve abstracted some key points below, writing specifically for those trying to start ventures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make a profit at the same time. I’ve also drawn upon the excellent book by Stasinopoulos et al. titled Whole System Design, where you can find detailed examples combined with a nicely organized set of steps for organizing the design process.
1). Create an interdisciplinary team
Your team needs a diversity of skills to truly explore almost any design space. That’s because few people have the breadth and depth of knowledge across all relevant disciplines to assess what’s possible. In addition, the process of brainstorming, if properly fostered, generates new ideas and acceptance by the team of the resulting design path (by virtue of their shared experience of brainstorming).
2). Reward the team for substantially improved designs
The goal is radical improvement, not incremental changes, and the best way to achieve this result is to pay for what you want. This sounds like a commonsense notion, but that’s often not how things are done. For example, engineers designing the heating and cooling systems in commercial buildings are usually paid as a percentage of the capital cost of the system they installso it’s no wonder they don’t undertake whole system redesigns that would reduce capital costs.  So reward the team for game-changing innovation in whatever ways your pocketbook allows.
3). Start with a clean sheet
While learning from past efforts is helpful, radically improved designs always start with a clean sheet. That’s partly because rapid technology change has opened up previously unknown opportunities, but also because old designs embody old assumptions, and those often no longer hold. I show in the book how even talented people create artificial obstacles to accomplishing big goals, and starting fresh can allow you to sidestep that tendency.
4). Rely on measured data
Baseline values for current products as well as for accomplishing the defined task need to be based on measured data, not on assumptions or rules of thumb. That’s because only measured data conveys the current reality, while rules of thumb are based on history, and because of the rapid pace of change discussed earlier in this chapter, history is becoming less and less relevant to what is possible today.
5). Go for multiple benefits
When designing a product, each component should (to the extent possible) serve multiple benefits, to minimize costs and maximize reliability. This lesson is also true for the product itself. Efficiency or low emissions by themselves won’t sell products to the vast majority of consumers, but pairing those improvements with other benefits is the best way to ensure that low-carbon innovations are widely adopted. That means that products need to reduce emissions, save money, and make people’s lives better all at the same time. That often meanssaving time, which turns out to be one of the most valuable scarce resources we have in our busy modern lives (see my third essay for more details).
6). Incorporate feedback into the design
That means use of smart controls to make equipment operation more effective and data collection to improve both current operations and future products. With the advent of ever more efficient computing technologies, we’ll be better able to incorporate such innovations into most future products, with corresponding increases in efficiency, reductions in emissions, and improvements in meeting human needs.
7). Accept and foster a non-linear design process
Another important feature of true integrated design is that it is anything but linear, and that’s all to the good. It’s almost impossible to anticipate everything in advance, and the process of design creates new insights that would never arise without the inevitable false starts. For example, until you actually see a working prototype you can’t really know whether it’s what you want, as the team creating the first iPhone discovered as they neared the product launch.
Conclusions
The most important lesson from the whole systems design literature is that conventional incremental design practices are both pervasive and pernicious.   They leave real money on the table and slow the adoption of current technologies that could substantially reduce emissions.  Don’t let this happen to you!  Go for game changing innovation, and the climate (and your pocketbook) will be the better for it.
Source : GigaOM