Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Living Lab : innovation in accelerating the adoption of sustainable technologies for campus infrastructure Save, Paul William 2014

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2014_spring_save_paul.pdf [ 4.81MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0167308.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0167308-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0167308-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0167308-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0167308-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0167308-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0167308-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0167308-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0167308.ris

Full Text

UBC LIVING LAB: INNOVATION IN ACCELERATING THE ADOPTION OF SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CAMPUS INFRASTRUCTURE  by  Paul William Save  B.Com University of British Columbia, 2009    A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULLFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF   MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE   in  The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies  (Civil Engineering)   THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  (Vancouver)   April 2014   © Paul William Save, 2014 ii  Abstract Any group that creates challenging goals for the future also requires a strategy to achieve them. In the University of British Columbia’s (UBC) case, the goals are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 33% below 2007 levels by 2015, 66% by 2020, and 100% by 2050 (UBC 2010c). The strategy was to develop the University Sustainability Initiative and the Campus as a Living Lab to assign authority and responsibility to help manage this endeavor. The Campus as a Living Lab at UBC provides a process for simultaneously meeting increasing infrastructure capacity requirements while achieving sustainability goals. The Campus as Living Lab accomplishes this by collaborating with industry partners, operations, and researchers to utilize the campus as a test bed for commercialization of sustainable technologies. This thesis explores the Campus as a Living Lab program at UBC and the replicability of it as a tool to expedite the adoption of sustainable technologies for campus and municipal infrastructure.  Part of this exploration involved developing and amalgamating business process models for current practices at UBC, and conducting a 16-month long ethnographic study to extract key transferable characteristics for replicability. The research culminates in a series of comprehensive and generic business process models that illustrate what is required to develop and maintain a Campus as a Living Lab program.   iii  Preface The author identified and designed the research, performed the research and analyzed the research data. The author is the sole creator of all the material in the thesis other than the following contributions: Appendix J Chronological Order of Implementation for the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability Roughly 60 percent of material was content written in a joint paper by Laura Fedoruk and the author, of which the author wrote approximately 35 percent of the 60 percent (Fedoruk & Save 2012). The joint paper was completed on March 10th, 2012, and the material is part of an unpublished work due to some portions being confidential. The title of the work is “The Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability Retrospective”, and material was obtained from the section with sub-title “Timeline (Appendix 3)”.  This thesis contains an ethnographic study where meetings of public record were attended to aid with collecting information about the organizational practices, not about individuals or their opinions. A member of the UBC Behavioural Research Ethics Board was contacted and responded that the TCPS Article 2.1 should cover the research.  iv  Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ ii Preface ............................................................................................................................................. iii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ iv List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................... x List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. xii List of Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... xv Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... xvi Dedication .................................................................................................................................... xvii Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Campus as a Living Lab ............................................................................................ 3 1.2 Motivations ........................................................................................................ 4 1.3 Objectives ......................................................................................................... 6 1.3.1 Thesis Statement ..................................................................................................... 6 1.3.2 Objectives/Research Questions............................................................................... 6 1.3.3 Scope ....................................................................................................................... 7 1.3.4 Research Challenges ................................................................................................ 7 1.3.5 Required Criteria ..................................................................................................... 8 1.4 Methodology ..................................................................................................... 9 1.5 Thesis Document Readers Guide ................................................................... 11 Chapter 2. Point of Departure ................................................................................................. 13 2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 13 2.1.1 Objectives .............................................................................................................. 14 2.2 Barriers to Sustainable Technology Adoption in Campus Infrastructure Systems 14 2.3 Increase in Available Technology .................................................................... 16 2.4 Technology Development and Transfer ........................................................... 18 2.4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 18 2.4.2 Technology Readiness Levels ................................................................................ 18 2.4.3 Technology Transfer Process ................................................................................. 20 v  2.4.4 Economic Clusters ................................................................................................. 23 2.4.5 Value Chain ............................................................................................................ 24 2.4.6 Technology Adoption Curve .................................................................................. 26 2.4.7 Living Labs .............................................................................................................. 28 2.4.8 Summary ................................................................................................................ 30 2.5 Knowledge Diffusion ....................................................................................... 32 2.5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 32 2.5.2 Tacit (Implicit) versus Explicit Knowledge ............................................................. 32 2.5.3 Knowledge Modes 1 – 3 and Helices 1 - 5 ............................................................. 32 2.5.4 Barriers to New Knowledge Diffusion in Organizations ........................................ 34 2.5.5 Enablers to New Knowledge Diffusion in Organizations ....................................... 37 2.5.6 Summary ................................................................................................................ 38 2.6 Ethnographic Research ................................................................................... 38 2.6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 38 2.6.2 Gaining Access to Data .......................................................................................... 40 2.6.3 Data Collection – Writing Field notes .................................................................... 41 2.6.4 Data Analysis – Coding and Processing ................................................................. 43 2.6.5 Classification Frameworks ..................................................................................... 44 2.6.5.1 Cross Industry Process Classification Framework ............................................. 44 2.6.5.2 Project Management Body of Knowledge ......................................................... 45 2.6.6 Summary ................................................................................................................ 46 2.7 Business Process Modelling ........................................................................... 47 2.7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 47 2.7.2 Model Evaluation ................................................................................................... 47 2.7.3 Comparison of Model Types .................................................................................. 50 2.7.4 Summary ................................................................................................................ 53 2.8 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 53 Chapter 3. UBC’s Campus as a Living Lab ................................................................................ 56 3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 56 3.1.1 Objectives .............................................................................................................. 57 3.1.2 Methodology ......................................................................................................... 57 3.2 Campus as a Living Lab Background .............................................................. 57 vi  3.2.1 UBC Sustainability Prior to Campus as a Living Lab 1990-2008 ............................ 58 3.2.2 UBC Sustainability Campus as a Living Lab Development 2009-2014 ................... 59 3.2.3 Campus as a Living Lab, Current State................................................................... 59 3.3 Industry Scenario ............................................................................................ 70 3.4 Current Business Process Models for Campus as a Living Lab, Unsolicited Proposal Requests .................................................................................................... 71 3.4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 71 3.4.2 Process Modelling ................................................................................................. 71 3.4.2.1 Overall View for Unsolicited Requests for Capital Projects............................... 71 3.4.2.2 Unsolicited Project Plan Submissions Greater than $2.5 Million –  September 2010 through Current Practice .......................................................................................... 74 3.4.2.3 Unsolicited Project Plan Submissions Less than $2.5 Million – September 2010 through Current Practice ................................................................................................... 86 3.4.3 Summary ................................................................................................................ 88 3.5 Current Business Process Models for Campus as a Living Lab Solicited Proposal Requests .................................................................................................... 88 3.5.1 Campus as a Living Lab, Initial Partner Selection .................................................. 88 3.6 Project-Specific Business Process Models ...................................................... 90 3.6.1 Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability ................................................. 90 3.6.1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 90 3.6.1.2 Business Process Models ................................................................................... 91 3.6.1.3 Summary ............................................................................................................ 94 3.6.2 Academic District Energy System .......................................................................... 94 3.6.2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 94 3.6.2.2 Business Process Models ................................................................................... 95 3.6.2.3 Summary .......................................................................................................... 100 3.6.3 Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility ................................................ 100 3.6.3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 100 3.6.3.2 Business Process Models ................................................................................. 101 3.6.3.3 Summary .......................................................................................................... 107 3.6.4 Summary .............................................................................................................. 107 3.7 Organizational Transformation ...................................................................... 107 3.7.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 107 vii  3.7.2 Important Attributes ........................................................................................... 108 3.7.3 Recommendations for Improvement .................................................................. 109 3.7.4 Key Transferable Characteristics ......................................................................... 110 3.7.5 Summary .............................................................................................................. 111 3.8 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 111 Chapter 4. Analysis of Campus as a Living Lab Activities ...................................................... 113 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 113 4.1.1 Objectives ............................................................................................................ 113 4.1.2 Research Questions ............................................................................................. 113 4.1.3 Methodology Selection ....................................................................................... 114 4.1.4 Ethnographic Study of Campus as a Living Lab Activities .................................... 115 4.1.4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 115 4.1.4.2 Observer as Participant ................................................................................... 115 4.1.4.3 Data Collection ................................................................................................ 116 4.1.4.4 Coding Field notes ........................................................................................... 117 4.1.4.5 Summary .......................................................................................................... 123 4.2 Key Findings ................................................................................................. 123 4.2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 123 4.2.2 Quantitative Analysis ........................................................................................... 124 4.2.3 Qualitative Analysis ............................................................................................. 127 4.2.4 Key Transferable Characteristics from Key Findings ........................................... 135 4.2.5 Summary .............................................................................................................. 137 4.3 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 137 Chapter 5. Proposed Generic Living Lab Processes ............................................................... 138 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 138 5.1.1 Objectives ............................................................................................................ 139 5.1.2 Methodology ....................................................................................................... 139 5.2 Key Transferable Characteristics from Previous Chapters ............................ 139 5.2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 139 5.2.2 Key Transferable Characteristics from Chapter 3 ................................................ 139 5.2.3 Key Transferable Characteristics from Chapter 4 ................................................ 141 5.2.4 Summary .............................................................................................................. 143 viii  5.3 Campus as a Living Lab Business Process Models ...................................... 143 5.3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 143 5.3.2 Campus as a Living Lab Committee Evolution (P-1.0) ......................................... 148 5.3.2.1 Campus as a Living Lab Development Phase (P-1.1) ....................................... 148 5.3.2.2 Organizational Chart (D-2) ............................................................................... 151 5.3.2.3 Terms of Reference (D-3) ................................................................................ 153 5.3.2.4 Slide Deck for Preliminary Project Evaluation (D-4) ........................................ 156 5.3.2.5 Spider Chart for In-depth Project Evaluation (D-5) ......................................... 157 5.3.2.6 Campus as a Living Lab Operational Phase (P-1.2) .......................................... 160 5.3.3 Infrastructure Analysis Model (P-1.2.1) .............................................................. 162 5.3.4 Project Selection (P-1.2.2) ................................................................................... 165 5.3.4.1 Campus as a Living Lab Unsolicited Request (P-1.2.2.1) ................................. 165 5.3.5 CLL Improvement ................................................................................................ 176 5.3.5.1 Continually Improve Technical Guidelines for Buildings (P-1.2.3.1) ............... 178 5.3.6 High Performance Building Model (P-2) .............................................................. 178 5.3.7 Summary .............................................................................................................. 180 5.4 Recommendations ........................................................................................ 180 Chapter 6. Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 181 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 186 Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 199 Appendix A  Kyoto Protocol GHG Emission Reduction Calculation ........................ 199 Appendix B  Average Greenhouse Gas Emission for Canadian Municipalities with Populations over 10,000 people ............................................................................... 204 Appendix C  Average Greenhouse Gas Emission for Canadian Colleges and Universities with Populations over 10,000 people .................................................... 219 Appendix D US Patent and World Population Statistics ......................................... 235 Appendix E CLL Meetings Attended ...................................................................... 243 Appendix F Past and Current UBC Partnerships ................................................... 246 Appendix G Additional Organizational Charts ........................................................ 248 Appendix H Slide Deck for Unsolicited Proposals to Present Value Proposition to the Campus as a Living Lab .......................................................................................... 249 Appendix I  Spider Chart Criteria .......................................................................... 256 ix  Appendix J Chronological Order of Implementation for the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability ...................................................................................... 262 Appendix K Listing of Number of Data Points by Category and Process in the Campus as a Living Lab Specific Framework .......................................................... 265 x  List of Tables Table 1: “Taxonomy of two different types of technology regimes” (Gilsing et al. 2011) ........... 22 Table 2: “Characteristics of University Industry Technology Transfer Stakeholders” (Siegel et al. 2003) .............................................................................................................................................. 23 Table 3: Technology adoption life cycle category differences (Moore 1991) .............................. 27 Table 4: Potential Methods of Barrier Reduction for New Knowledge Creation Integrated into this Thesis ...................................................................................................................................... 36 Table 5: Categories of the American Productivity and Quality Center’s Cross-Industry Classification FrameworkSM (APQC 2013) ................................................................................... 45 Table 6: Chapters of the Project Management Institute’s Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMI 2008) ................................................................................................................. 46 Table 7: Objectives of business process models (Luo & Tung 1999) ........................................... 48 Table 8: Perspectives of business process models (Curtis et al. 1992) ......................................... 48 Table 9: Characteristics of business process models (Luo & Tung 1999) .................................... 49 Table 10: Business process and information system modelling techniques (Giaglis 2001) .......... 50 Table 11: Advantages and disadvantages of various business process models (Giaglis 2001) ..... 51 Table 12: Differences between modelling perspectives of business process models (Giaglis 2001) ....................................................................................................................................................... 52 Table 13: Slide deck overview for companies presenting opportunities to UBC (Evans 2012) ... 79 Table 14: Spider chart criteria for selecting projects to pursue at UBC ........................................ 82 Table 15: The derivation of the Campus as a Living Lab-Specific Classification Framework ... 120 Table 16: University of British Columbia’s Campus as a Living Lab draft terms of reference (Verbatim) (Sauder et al. 2013) ................................................................................................... 154 Table 17: Slide deck for preliminary project evaluation (Evans 2012) ....................................... 157 Table 18: Spider chart for in-depth project analysis (Evans 2013) ............................................. 158 Table 19: First 38 signatories for Kyoto Protocol actual emissions for 1990, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, as well as percentage of change between 2011 and 1990 (United Nations 2011b) .... 201 Table 20: Selection of Canadian municipal GHG emissions data (tonnes CO2 equivalent) ....... 208 Table 21: Population data for selection of Canadian municipalities whose GHG emissions data was obtained ................................................................................................................................ 211 Table 22: Selection of Canadian municipal GHG emissions data (tonnes CO2 equivalent) provided in 2011 estimates and per person ................................................................................. 213 Table 23: Summary of data obtained and per capita comparisons for data sources .................... 216 xi  Table 24: Multiplier table for how much more each municipality with populations over 10,000 expel in tonnes CO2 equivalent in other provinces ...................................................................... 218 Table 25: Estimated GHG emissions for Canadian universities ................................................. 221 Table 26: 2006/2007 Full time equivalent student and full time faculty data (CAUT 2010) ...... 222 Table 27: 2007/2008 Full time equivalent student and full time faculty data (CAUT 2011) ...... 224 Table 28: 2008/2009 Full time equivalent student and full time faculty data (CAUT 2012) ...... 226 Table 29: 2009/2010 Full time equivalent student and full time faculty data (CAUT 2013) ...... 228 Table 30: 2010/2011 Full time equivalent student and full time faculty data (CAUT 2014) ...... 230 Table 31:  Selection of Canadian university GHG emissions data (tonnes CO2 equivalent) ...... 232 Table 32: Estimated GHG emissions of Canadian universities ................................................... 233 Table 33: Population statistics for the USA and the rest of the world (WorldBank 2012) ......... 236 Table 34: Population statistics for the USA and the rest of the world (ages 15-64 years) (WorldBank 2012) ....................................................................................................................... 237 Table 35: USA utility patent applications (USA 2013) ............................................................... 239 Table 36: USA utility patents granted (USA 2013) .................................................................... 239 Table 37: USA utility patent applications (normalized with population growth for people ages 15-64 years) ...................................................................................................................................... 241 Table 38: USA utility patents granted (normalized with population growth for people ages 15-64 years) ........................................................................................................................................... 242 Table 39: Campus as a Living Lab Working Group meetings attended and data points (notes) written .......................................................................................................................................... 244 Table 40: Past and current UBC partnerships (UBC 2013c) ....................................................... 247 Table 41: CIRS twelve year timeline (Fedoruk & Save 2012) .................................................... 263 Table 42: Listed number of data points by category and process in the Campus as a Living Lab Framework................................................................................................................................... 266 xii  List of Figures Figure 1: Average emissions per campus with over 10,000 people in 2011 ................................... 5 Figure 2: Average GHG emissions per city over 10,000 people in 2011 ........................................ 5 Figure 3: Economic example of performance and cost over time ................................................. 15 Figure 4: % Increase over 5-year period averages for USA utility patent applications. (Normalized) ................................................................................................................................. 17 Figure 5: NASA Technology readiness levels (Mankins 1995) .................................................... 19 Figure 6: Campus as a Living Lab technology readiness levels .................................................... 20 Figure 7: Value Chain ................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 8: Connection between competitive advantage and social issues ...................................... 26 Figure 9: Technology adoption curve (Moore 1991) .................................................................... 27 Figure 10: Intersection of Living Labs with technology adoption, technology readiness, partnerships, and investment ......................................................................................................... 29 Figure 11: Knowledge creation helices and systems thinking development (Carayannis & Campbell 2011) ............................................................................................................................. 34 Figure 12: Structure of a thematic network. Image adapted from: (Attride-Stirling 2001) ........... 44 Figure 13: Business process model legend .................................................................................... 61 Figure 14: Overview of models and documents for Chapter 3 ...................................................... 63 Figure 15: University Sustainability Initiative and Campus as a Living Lab organizational chart 65 Figure 16: Campus as a Living Lab level of engagement through phases of project life cycle .... 69 Figure 17: Campus as a Living Lab project selection ................................................................... 72 Figure 18: Campus as a Living Lab – overall view for unsolicited requests for capital projects .. 73 Figure 19: Project Steering Committee structure .......................................................................... 75 Figure 20: Campus as a Living Lab project plan submission for capital funds > 2.5M (September 2010 – January 2012) .................................................................................................................... 77 Figure 21: Campus as a Living Lab project plan submission for capital funds > 2.5M (January 2012 – June 2013) ......................................................................................................................... 80 Figure 22: Campus as a Living Lab project plan submission for capital funds > 2.5M (June 2013 – Present) ....................................................................................................................................... 84 Figure 23: Visualization from spider chart analysis identifying potential project strengths and weaknesses .................................................................................................................................... 85 Figure 24: Unsolicited project plan submission for capital projects < $2.5M............................... 87 Figure 25: Campus as a Living Lab – initial strategic partner request for information ................ 89 xiii  Figure 26: Campus as a Living Lab Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability example – actual implementation ................................................................................................................... 93 Figure 27: Campus as a Living Lab – project plan submission - Academic District Energy System example ......................................................................................................................................... 97 Figure 28: Campus as a Living Lab – project plan submission – Academic District Energy System example, Energy X Contest .............................................................................................. 99 Figure 29: Campus as a Living Lab – project plan submission – Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility example .................................................................................................. 103 Figure 30: Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility actual process comparison with current CLL process .................................................................................................................... 106 Figure 31: Model for self-reflection ............................................................................................ 109 Figure 32: CLL Working Group field note example ................................................................... 118 Figure 33: Original plotting of data points across the APQC and PMI frameworks ................... 119 Figure 34: Example of plotting data Points across Campus as a Living Lab Process Framework ..................................................................................................................................................... 123 Figure 35: Percentage of data points that were listed in each category ....................................... 124 Figure 36: Campus as a Living Lab Working Group’s flux of priorities from December 6th, 2012 to March 27th, 2014 ..................................................................................................................... 126 Figure 37: Campus as a Living Lab Working Group flux of priorities ....................................... 127 Figure 38: Organization of a thematic network. Image adapted from (Attride-Stirling 2001).... 128 Figure 39: Discovery and review process for themes .................................................................. 129 Figure 40: Emergence of sub-themes from reviewing data points .............................................. 129 Figure 41: Business process model legend .................................................................................. 145 Figure 42: Campus as a Living Lab - model overview ............................................................... 147 Figure 43: Campus as a Living Lab committee evolution ........................................................... 148 Figure 44: Campus as a Living Lab committee development phase ........................................... 150 Figure 45: Campus as a Living Lab generic organizational chart ............................................... 153 Figure 46: Visualization from spider chart analysis identifying potential project strengths and weaknesses .................................................................................................................................. 159 Figure 47: Campus as a Living Lab committee operation phase................................................. 161 Figure 48: Campus as a Living Lab infrastructure analysis ........................................................ 163 Figure 49: Campus as a Living Lab infrastructure analysis contest ............................................ 164 Figure 50: Campus as a Living Lab project selection and development ..................................... 165 Figure 51: Campus as a Living Lab unsolicited request evaluation for capital projects ............. 166 Figure 52: Campus as a Living Lab unsolicited requests submission and initial review ............ 168 xiv  Figure 53: Campus as a Living Lab unsolicited project plan submission for capital funds < $2.5M ..................................................................................................................................................... 171 Figure 54: Campus as a Living Lab unsolicited project plan submission for capital funds > $2.5M ..................................................................................................................................................... 173 Figure 55: Campus as a Living Lab solicited request for projects .............................................. 175 Figure 56: Campus as a Living Lab continual improvement ...................................................... 177 Figure 57: Campus as a Living Lab high performance building design ...................................... 179 Figure 58: Slide deck introduction slide ...................................................................................... 249 Figure 59: Slide deck presentation outline .................................................................................. 250 Figure 60: Slide deck executive summary ................................................................................... 250 Figure 61: Slide deck opportunity positioning ............................................................................ 251 Figure 62: Slide deck solution overview ..................................................................................... 251 Figure 63: Slide deck solution example ...................................................................................... 252 Figure 64: Slide deck program plan ............................................................................................ 252 Figure 65: Slide deck program partnerships ................................................................................ 253 Figure 66: Slide deck product cost assumptions ......................................................................... 253 Figure 67: Slide deck innovation opportunities ........................................................................... 254 Figure 68: Slide deck operations and maintenance support plan ................................................ 254 Figure 69: Slide deck value-added opportunities ........................................................................ 255 Figure 70: Spider chart deal requirements ................................................................................... 257 Figure 71: Spider chart operational efficiency criteria ................................................................ 258 Figure 72: Spider chart research excellence criteria .................................................................... 259 Figure 73: Spider chart student learning criteria ......................................................................... 260 Figure 74: Spider chart community engagement and sustainability criteria ............................... 261  xv  List of Abbreviations APQC  American Productivity and Quality Center BPM  Business Process Model CIRS  Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability CFI  Center for Innovation CLL   Campus as a Living Lab CO2  Carbon Dioxide COV  City of Vancouver FTE  Full Time Equivalent GHG  Greenhouse gas IDEF  Integrated DEFinition ICOM  Input Control Output Mechanism  NGO  Non-Governmental Organization PMI  Project Management Institute RFI  Request for Information RFP  Request for Proposal UBC  The University of British Columbia UML  Unified Modelling Language USI   University Sustainability Initiative SEEDS Social Ecological Economic Development Studies  xvi  Acknowledgements Thomas Froese: For opening a door for the first commerce student to transfer directly to graduate studies at the University of British Columbia to pursue a dream of making a positive impact on society. The continued support, patience, and perseverance through the many extra-curricular activities I undertook while under your supervision are greatly appreciated. The advice on framing the thesis, structuring the chapters, and on how to continually improve the thesis throughout the writing process proved invaluable. Alberto Cayuela: For becoming a co-supervisor and providing valuable input throughout the thesis. The introduction to the Campus as a Living Lab Working Group and advice in selecting the case studies chosen was the foundation of this research. Campus as a Living Lab Working Group Members: For providing an opportunity for me to observe the meetings, allowing for engagement in the meetings, and contributing to a memorable graduate experience.  Andrew Collins: For providing input on the Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility models early in the thesis writing and providing feedback on Chapters 3 and 5. Iain Evans: For contributing the 12 page slide deck, spider chart, and proving feedback on current CLL business process models (BPMs) for Figures 3.4, 3.6, 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, and 3.12. Jeffrey Giffin: For contribution to the Academic District Energy System section, including providing the background for the development of the BPMs for Figure 3.15 and Figure 3.16, and responding to e-mails when time was of the essence. NSERC CREATE and the University of British Columbia Sustainable Building Science Program: For providing funding for this research, and access to a diverse network of faculty and students involved in sustainable buildings. The program also provided connections to find another co-founder of a company – Structured Reports Corp. xvii  Dedication I dedicate this research to my family and friends.  To my family, Norman and Diana Save, who have provided support through university and have always encouraged me to pursue my dreams. You have always been there when I needed you. You are awesome. To my friends, who have been asking when I would graduate, I will provide you with a couple hundred page clue. It has been great to people to “decompress” with at times. Thank you to everyone who supported me through this experience, I greatly appreciated it.   1  Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1 Introduction The focus of this research is to explore the contributions of the University of British Columbia’s (UBC’s) “Campus as a Living Lab” (CLL) program and to develop replicable processes for other universities and municipalities to expand their sustainable practices in similar ways.  CLL is the focus of this research because it is believed by the author to be a practical and effective way to advance the development of new sustainable technologies.  The CLL concept assists with the need to develop innovative technologies in order to become more sustainable. There are many steps along this process, including idea creation, implementation, and alteration of mainstream processes. One of these development steps is to pilot new technologies for widespread adoption. Although there are barriers to this, one way to alleviate them is to provide companies with an avenue to test their technologies within the UBC environment—using the University’s campus and community itself as a “Living Lab”. Through this process, barriers to the implementation of these technologies can be identified and solutions can be developed. It is through these innovative technologies that greater energy conservation, sustainable energy production, water conservation, and larger overall greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions can be realized. An example of one UBC CLL project is the Academic District Energy System implementation which converts the current system from steam to hot water. The result of this conversion will potentially reduce GHG emissions by 22 percent while saving “$5.5 million in annual savings including the cost investment for not reinvesting an aging steam system”. (Giffin 2014,  UBC 2011d)   The reasons for targeting universities and municipalities to achieve sustainability goals with the CLL concept are threefold.  First, universities and municipalities have the right balance of having control over their respective jurisdictional assets, executives that are fairly accessible to promote the CLL concept, the potential to rapidly initiate organizational change, and for this change to 2  have considerable impact on the environment. They also resemble each other in their governance and infrastructure systems.  Although achieving positive environmental change at a larger scale such as a country can be possible, not all countries have the ambition to actually reach targets they even agree to. In 1997, 38 countries signed the Kyoto Protocol which bound them to reduce their GHG emissions to a weighted average of 4.95 percent below 1990 emissions levels for the period of 2008 to 2012 (United Nations 1998), United Nations 2011b). 1 Although 23 countries were succeeding at meeting these targets as of 2011, one of the world’s top ten producers of GHGs was not; namely Canada (United Nations 2011c, United Nations 2011b). 23 Additionally, as of December of 2011, Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol all together (United Nations 2011a). There is, however, hope in the grass-roots movements of universities and municipalities to target their own emission reductions with a greater chance of success. UBC and the City of Vancouver (COV) have both charted paths for reaching ambitious goals. UBC is planning to be GHG neutral by 2050, and the COV is aiming to be the greenest city in the world by 2020 (UBC 2010b, UBC 2010c, City of Vancouver 2012). It is an opportune time to provide other universities and municipalities a proven template for improving environmental stewardship. Second, in comparison to entire countries or provinces, universities and municipalities are smaller and more agile. This ability to change quickly enables these smaller entities to adapt with less bureaucratic hurdles than a federal or provincial structure. Additionally, once a new technology has been proven at the university or municipal scale, it will be easier to replicate at hundreds of other places throughout Canada, and thousands throughout the world.  Third, there is an increased strain placed on global municipal and university infrastructure. This is due to a combination of increasing population, expanding built space, and ageing and/or inadequate infrastructure systems; including water management, energy, transportation, and telecommunications (Rahman & Vanier 2004,  Bliss 2007, Li et al. 2010, Dodson 2009).                                                   1 See Appendix A – Kyoto Protocol GHG Emission Reduction Calculation 2 See Appendix A – Kyoto Protocol GHG Emission Reduction Calculation 3 Canada was to be at 94 percent of 1990 emission levels, but as of 2011, it was at 132.9 percent.  3  This research is aimed to provide a tool for achieving a wide-scale roll out of the CLL structure. Emphasis is placed on addressing problems surrounding the implementation and development of a CLL structure at the university and municipal scale. Two outstanding problems are that 1) there is a vast amount of information for people to digest and develop a shared understanding of in order to create a CLL, and 2) developing business process models (BPMs) in order to create a visual aid to succinctly represent vast information would help, but most of the models do not exist or have not been formalized. In order to overcome these problems the BPMs involved with implementing and developing the CLL format are analyzed at varying levels of granularity in order to gain context into how these processes involving multi-stakeholders work. As case studies involving the UBC CLL are used the initial BPMs in Chapter 3 are developed specific to UBC. Key transferrable characteristics are then identified and implemented into generic templates where modularity will allow for others to use only the applicable components. The two main results of this research are as follows: • UBC will have BPMs for documenting processes necessary for implementing and developing the CLL • Generic templates will be created for universities and municipalities to implement and develop their own CLL 1.1.1 Campus as a Living Lab Campus as a Living Lab was an initiative that arose from the year-long development of the UBC “Sustainability Academic Strategy” which completed in 2009 (UBC 2009b). The main components of the Sustainability Academic Strategy are Campus as a Living Lab (CLL) program, Agent of Change program, and the “University Sustainability Initiative” (USI) organizational unit that governs them. To accompany UBC’s goal of eliminating GHG emissions by 2050, a method of achieving it also needed to be developed. The CLL is a collaboration between UBC’s Building Operations, external companies, and researchers in an effort to creatively and economically meet operational requirements while striving towards the goal of eliminating GHG emissions; an example of this is the district energy system installation which is explained in Chapter 3.6.2.3. Agent of Change is a way of influencing the larger community to change their 4  sustainability practices. One particular example of the Agent of Change is UBC’s requirement to have all requests for proposals (RFPs) submitted to UBC contain a sustainability component worth 20 percent of the evaluation criteria. With thousands of RFPs submitted yearly, this begins to develop a different way of thinking for many companies. More details are discussed in Chapter 3, “UBC’s Campus as a Living Lab”. 1.2 Motivations In order to facilitate significant change, it can be quicker and easier to give municipalities and universities the tools to implement the adoption of sustainable technologies rather than to wait for a change in federal or provincial policy.  UBC and the City of Vancouver (COV) are two examples how change can be rapidly implemented at a smaller scale. UBC has set a goal to become GHG neutral by 2050 and the City of Vancouver has the goal to become the greenest city in the world by 2020. There are 33 universities and colleges and 400 municipalities with over 10,000 people in Canada.(AUCC 2012) (Canada 2011) The average campus and municipality above respectively expelled approximately 61,855 and 1,166,606 tons of CO2 equivalent GHGs in 2011. (See Figure 1.1and Figure 1.2) 4,5                                                  4 See Appendix B – Average Green House Gas Emission for Canadian Municipalities With Populations Over 10,000 people 5 See Appendix C – Average Green House Gas Emission for Canadian Colleges and Universities With Populations Over 10,000 people. Not all provinces were used in this sample as not all universities in these provinces had GHG data available. More details are in Appendix C. 5   Figure 1: Average emissions per campus with over 10,000 people in 2011   Figure 2: Average GHG emissions per city over 10,000 people in 2011 A sustained ten percent reduction in GHGs for these campuses and municipalities would mean a savings of over 125,781 tons of CO2 equivalent GHGs per year. The CLL BPMs may not be able to be used by all institutions, but there are likely many that could adopt 6  components of it in order to make a difference. If a “roadmap” via a set of generic templates could be created for these places to implement a CLL structure, then it could create greater environmental stewardship and further green jobs.  Additionally, the CLL is still rapidly evolving with the introduction of many new processes and strategies being adopted from how unsolicited proposals flow through the system to how contractual obligations form. Providing these learnings could help reduce the learning curve for others to adopt similar practices. With that in mind, it was the author’s goal to assess how much of a success the Living Lab is, how successful it could be, and to create a replicable process for other municipality scale entities to utilize.  1.3 Objectives 1.3.1 Thesis Statement It is possible to model the CLL with the use of BPM as seen by previous models already created.  Development of BPM templates to form a replicable “roadmap” of the Campus as a Living Lab concept at UBC could facilitate the acceleration of the adoption of sustainable technologies at other universities.  1.3.2 Objectives/Research Questions The main purpose of this research is to create the foundation of a “roadmap” for other institutions to adopt a UBC CLL strategy. The sub objectives of this research are as follows: 1. Document and model the processes 2. Reconcile the models with emerging processes 3. Create improvements 7  1.3.3 Scope  The goal of this research is to create generic BPM templates for universities and municipalities to implement and develop their own CLL. Although many processes were developed, not all the BPMs involving the CLL were produced. The BPMs developed underwent many iterations involving input from people experienced in those specific processes, but it is possible that more refinement could be useful. This research is meant to be a starting point for future research to develop as opposed to being the final version of all CLL BPMs. Additionally, this focus of this research was to solely concentrate on the UBC CLL even though there are currently many other examples of Living Labs.  1.3.4 Research Challenges There are a number of challenges regarding this research. First, the business processes currently available are detailed, but are not available for all components, or for each layer of granularity; therefore, the whole picture of the CLL is not available. If there was clear documentation for all of the business processes involved with the CLL at UBC, then it would be easier to not only relay this information visually, but to create templates for other institutions, municipalities and other entities to utilize.  Second, in order to gain this data, all the available documented business processes need to be collected from various sources and, if required, standardized. Then missing components and layers of granularity need to be identified and developed. As not all of the components of the CLL have been implemented; such as NGO collaboration, and interdisciplinary sustainability research in the social sciences, this forms a problem and opportunity for designing untested BPMs.  Third, there is similar difficulty to above when creating generic templates for other institutions, municipalities and other entities to implement new processes. Fourth, not only is it a challenge to have a group gain consensus on the BPM for a current processes, but even more so for something that has not been implemented yet and/or is undergoing continual improvement.  8  1.3.5 Required Criteria The UBC CLL specific business process charts will be validated by consulting members of the USI to assess whether or not they accurately demonstrate what is occurring on the CLL at UBC.  9  1.4 Methodology A summary of the methodology for this thesis is provided below. For supporting evidence on the research method, please see section 2.6 Ethnographic Research, and section Chapter 4 Analysis of Campus as a Living Lab Activities.  • Literature Review o The technology transfer process  Provide a background about the technology development and transfer process, barriers, and how the CLL can overcome these barriers o Ethnographic research  Introduce the techniques available for this type of qualitative analysis o Business Process Modelling  Summarize attributes of models and determine model type to use • Business Process Models o Gather documentation related to the USI and CLL  Archive the history of the development of the CLL  Uncover what BPMs have been developed for the CLL o Develop BPMs for UBC’s CLL  Gather documentation to develop BPMs  Obtain feedback from USI members on the BPMs developed  Integrate the feedback on the BPMs  Outline key transferable characteristics  o Create generic BPMs for other universities and municipalities to integrate a living lab 10   Identify key transferable characteristics from the models developed for the CLL  Integrate these characteristics into generic models 11  1.5 Thesis Document Readers Guide Brief summaries of subsequent chapters are outlined below. Chapter Two outlines the barriers to sustainable technology adoption in campus infrastructure systems with focus on performance, schedule and cost. A background on the increase of available technology, technology readiness levels, the technology transfer process, economic clusters, value chain, the technology adoption curve, and living labs are presented. To provide a foundation for analyzing CLL meetings Chapter 4, an overview to ethnographic is provided. Business process modelling and the various types available are then introduced, and explanations on how these were narrowed down until the final choice of using a modified flow chart is provided. These business process modelling techniques are used to present case studies in Chapter 3 and to illustrate analysis completed in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5. Chapter Three provides a history on the development of the CLL, a picture of the current state, reasons why the CLL is helpful for industry, and BPMs for evaluating industry collaboration for energy consumption, transmission and generation all in various stages of CLL development; namely the following: • Centre for Interactive Research in Sustainability (CIRS) – Occupancy was granted on October 16, 2012 (Lin 2012) • Academic District Energy System – Installation to continue through June 2015 (Engineers 2014) • Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility – Operational as of September 13, 2012 (UBC 2013c) Key transferable characteristics of these models are identified and recommendations for improvement are provided.  Chapter Four Analyzes the CLL meetings through an ethnographic study. This is achieved by inputting 517 aggregated meeting items from 36 CLL Working Group meetings across eight categories and 40 processes. These processes were either adapted from the frameworks developed by the Project Management Institute and the American 12  Productivity and Quality Center, or created new specifically for the CLL. From these findings emerged proposed processes from key findings to be implemented in the generic BPMs in Chapter 5.  Chapter Five culminates research from Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 to provide comprehensive business process models to support organizational transformation during implementation of a Campus as a Living Lab structure in other municipality scale entities.  Chapter Six summarizes the thesis dissertation while highlighting the research contribution and areas of potential expansion.  Chapter Seven contains the references.  Chapter Eight provides supporting appendices for the chapters.  13  Chapter 2. Point of Departure 2.1 Introduction Through the Sustainability Academic Strategy, UBC is positioning itself to be a world leader in sustainable development. To achieve this goal, the University has crafted the concept of the Campus as a Living Lab (CLL) as an innovation and commercialization hub for sustainable technologies.  The University’s March 2012 signing of a memorandum of understanding with Germany’s largest applied research institution, Fraunhofer, has increased links with industry as well as opportunities for commercialization (UBC 2012e). Additionally, with the arrival to UBC’s of a technology and innovation-savvy President, Dr. Arvind Gupta, the opportunities for continued increase with industry collaboration and student research on CLL projects can be anticipated (UBC 2014f).  An example of the opportunity and obligation of Universities for CLL projects is best summed up in UBC’s Vice President of Finance’s 2012 speech at a Regenerative Neighbourhoods Summit: “Universities have a unique opportunity to serve as centers of experimentation and role models to demonstrate the benefits of sustainable urban design. With 4,500 institutions and 20 million students in the US and Canada, higher education has an obligation to help scale up solutions quickly and disseminate them throughout society” (Ouillet 2012). By reviewing current CLL practices, this research aims to create generic Business Process Modelling (BPM) templates for universities and municipalities in order to implement and develop their own CLL programs in order to achieve their sustainability goals.  This chapter explores barriers to sustainable technology adoption, particularly relating to campus infrastructure systems.  The chapter reviews a number of related issues:  the risk associated with performance, schedule and cost; the increase of available technology associated with patents; how technology readiness levels relate to CLL; how taxonomies of the technology transfer process differ; why economic clusters are valuable; how to utilize the value chain; why the technology adoption curve is important to understand for 14  commercialization; and how living labs integrate into this mixture. An overview of ethnographic research is also provided to form a foundation for the analysis described in  Chapter 4. As a significant portion of this thesis centers on BPM, the background of BPM and various modelling techniques are explained, and a rationale for using flow charts as the BPM of choice is provided. 2.1.1 Objectives The main objectives of this chapter are as follows: • to develop an understanding of the barriers to technology adoption, • to lay a foundation of knowledge about technology transfer for later reference, • to explain the framework chosen for this research, • to provide a background of BPMs and the rationale for selecting flow charts.   2.2 Barriers to Sustainable Technology Adoption in Campus Infrastructure Systems Even though technology is more prevalent than ever, it is rarely adopted to the level of its potential due to the barriers associated with new technology. This is an important issue in the field of sustainability, where emerging technical solutions that could substantially improve society’s sustainability performance are not achieving their potential because of slow rates of technology transfer and adoption.  Some of these barriers include problems with identifying and accepting risk, lack of decision-making power, limited human resources for innovative and risky projects, and lack of opportunity to collaborate with society’s intuitions (such as universities) to initiate new projects.  There are three main variables associated with new projects that lead to uncertainty around project management risk:  performance, schedule, and cost. (Mankins 2009)  • Performance refers to the reliability and durability of a project that is functioning at an expected rate. Using an example of a bio-energy plant, the client of the project would want the plant to continuously (reliably) function at the expected 15  Megawatt output (rate) for the expected life under normal operation (durability) of the plant. • Schedule is the length of time that it would take from the beginning of conceptual design to the operational start-up at the expected performance. • Cost not only includes construction, but commissioning and operating as well.  Figure 2.1 illustrates that, as products mature over their technological lifecycle, their performance increases while their cost and the learning curve associated with their design and use tends to decrease (Kemp 1994). As projects are repeated and learning curves are reduced, schedules for design and construction are compacted. Additionally, industry-wide construction improvements may also occur, which can lead to shorter construction times.   Figure 3: Economic example of performance and cost over time Decision-making power can become an issue when people in campuses who want to enact change do not know how to do so, since it can be unclear as to who, if anyone, has the authority (Moore et al. 2005).  Additionally, human resources for risky projects on campuses can be limited since younger faculty may have too high of an opportunity cost to be involved (UBC 2009b). 16  Both tenured and tenure-track faculty agree that those who are pursuing tenure may choose not to be involved in a project, even though they may have the relevant experience. The risk of not publishing as expected, or the strain placed on teaching requirements, is simply too high. Also, campuses may not actually have mechanisms in place to collaborate on large projects. Additionally, many campuses may develop a request for qualifications in order to shortlist candidates on projects that already have preliminary approval, but some may not have processes developed on how to efficiently respond to unsolicited requests.   UBC attempts to de-risk projects by leveraging UBC infrastructure investments with matching funds from industry and the government, by reducing potential liability on carbon taxes, and by using projects to contribute to research and teaching.  In summary, new projects can be hindered by risks associated with performance, schedule, and cost. Additionally, these projects may not be feasible due to lack of available champions with expertise.  2.3 Increase in Available Technology As the level of world technology increases, it can require fewer resources to develop technology (Parente & Prescott 1994). A recent paper by Fraunhofer indicates that patents are also an indication of knowledge transfer and diffusion (Neuhäusler et al. 2013). As the population increases, technology advancements increase at a rate faster than population growth. This is evident in the rate that patents are applied for and granted in the US.6  Figure 2.2 shows that patent applications are increasing, although at a decreasing rate of increase.                                                   6 See Appendix D 17   Figure 4: % Increase over 5-year period averages for USA utility patent applications. (Normalized) In addition to the increase in patents, websites such as Kickstarter provide widespread and rapid accessibility of state-of-the-art devices for others to build their projects upon. 7 There has never been a time when technology has been more accessible and more widespread. This technological advancement in society also brings with it new and innovative sustainable technologies, such as biofuel, smart grid systems, smart HVAC systems, and infrared reflective paints. Although a campus could benefit from cutting-edge technologies that reduce power consumption and GHGs, these technologies are not always adopted. One of the reasons for this could be the variability and uncertainty surrounding the performance, schedule and cost of new technology.  To summarize, technology accessibility and development is increasing, which could lead to more widespread adoption if the inhibiting barriers were reduced.                                                  7 From the launch of Kickstarter on April 28th, 2009 through April 4th, 2014, an equivalent of $1,066,901,944 US dollars had been pledged to Kickstarter projects (Chen 2010, Kickstarter 2014).  Additionally, 59,823 projects have been successfully funded (Kickstarter 2014).    18  2.4 Technology Development and Transfer 2.4.1 Introduction Although there is a wide array of definitions of technology transfer, a new definition was adopted for this research and is provided below..  Technology Transfer: The transfer of knowledge, software, or physical technology to aid with the evolution of mechanisms required to perform a technological function. The following sections outline related concepts such as technology readiness levels, technology transfer processes, clusters, value chains, technology adoption, and technology investments.  2.4.2 Technology Readiness Levels Unrecoverable mistakes can occur when a technology is adopted before it is ready. Technology readiness levels were thus developed by NASA (Mankins 1995). These levels help assess how mature a technology is and to allow measurement of this maturity against other technologies. The nine stages of maturity in the model are listed in Figure 2.3 with citations from the 1995 white paper by Mankins.  19   Figure 5: NASA Technology readiness levels (Mankins 1995) As technology readiness levels have been modified for other purposes, such as investment readiness for a start-up, this approach was also taken to develop a model more applicable to a university (Blank 2014). In order to do so, the technology readiness levels six through nine (developed by Mankins, 1995) have been changed to take into account questions that have been raised about projects at past CLL Working Group meetings regarding technology. These changes are shown in Figure 2.4 below.  UBC’s CLL program tends to accept projects that lie between the technology readiness levels five through eight. This is mainly due to the CLL desire to pursue technology that is ready to be commercialized for the first time, or to open up the Canadian market to technology that may exist elsewhere, which is how UBC intends to help with the technology transfer process.  20   Figure 6: Campus as a Living Lab technology readiness levels In summary, technology readiness levels can reduce the potential for untimely errors by providing an assessment tool to help guide when technologies should be implemented.  2.4.3 Technology Transfer Process Rogers et al. (2000) provides five methods through which technology transfer from university research occurs: spin-off companies, licensing, publications, meetings, and cooperative research, and development agreements (Rogers et al. 2001).  Rogers et. al. noted that “spin-offs are a particularly effective means of technology transfer, leading to job and wealth creation” (Rogers et al. 2001).  While the CLL program may not create as many spin-offs, it facilitates the use of the campus as a testing ground for the commercialization of new technologies. The process of lending the campus as a testing ground allows companies to potentially develop new corporate branches and to build 21  capacity to further develop and sell newly proven technologies. These can also facilitate competition to develop similar technologies in an effort to compete in similar markets. In the case of UBC’s CLL, cooperative research and development agreements are forged in a way that companies may be able to maintain their intellectual property while utilizing UBC resources.  Adopting technology from abroad in order to provide a method of inward technology transfer supports the “creation and development of a skilled production and technical labour force” (Mowery & Oxley 1995). This occurs with the CLL when university researchers and staff contribute to the development, implementation, and operation of the technology. Additionally, when companies create local subsidiaries or branches, these provide another avenue for inward technology transfer to occur.   When investigating technology transfer, it is possible to look at it from two different types of regimes: science based and development based (Gilsing et al. 2011). Table 2.1 outlines these differences. The method of technology transfer is dependent upon the regime that the technology has evolved from. Using consultancy for technology transfer for a science based regime means to use “academic staff [for] the transfer of more tacit knowledge” (Gilsing et al. 2011).  Gilsing et al. tested a number of hypotheses by collecting 575 valid responses (Gilsing et al. 2011).  The results of these tested hypotheses are provided in the following assertions.  22  Table 1: “Taxonomy of two different types of technology regimes” (Gilsing et al. 2011)   Key characteristics and its importance to industry Key characteristics of transfer process  Degree of differentiation of knowledge base Nature of scientific knowledge Importance of scientific knowledge to industry Intensity of interaction Dominant mechanisms employed Science-based Regimes Low (stand-alone knowledge: relatively independent pieces of knowledge) Basic knowledge High to very high Low to medium (division of labour model) Publications, patents, consultancy, spin-offs Development-based Regimes High (systemic knowledge: relatively interdependent pieces of knowledge) Applied knowledge Low to medium Medium to high (participation to application)” Joint R&D programs, participation in conferences, regional / professional networks, inflow if PhD graduates For both types of regimes, there are barriers that can seriously inhibit technology transfer: “risk of information leakage, risk of a conflict of interest, and scientific knowledge being too general to be useful for firms” (Gilsing et al. 2011). Furthermore, there are specific barriers that apply to the different regimes. The science-based regimes have more of a barrier from “high costs of managing joint research projects” and development-based regimes have more of a barrier from “being too theoretical for a firm” (Gilsing et al. 2011).  While there are methods of technology transfer and potential barriers, it is also important to understand the motives that each party may have in the transaction (Siegel et al. 2003). Table 2.2 outlines some of these motives.  23  Table 2: “Characteristics of University Industry Technology Transfer Stakeholders” (Siegel et al. 2003) Stakeholder Actions Primary motive(s) Secondary motive(s) Organizational Culture University scientist Discovery of new knowledge Recognition within the scientific community Financial gain and a desire to secure additional research funding Scientific  Technology transfer office Works with faculty and firms / entrepreneurs to structure deal Protect and market the university’s intellectual property Facilitate technological diffusion and secure additional research funding Bureaucratic  Firm / entrepreneur Commercializes new technology Financial gain Maintain control of proprietary technologies Entrepreneurial  While there is potential for motives to conflict between stakeholders, there is also potential for these motives to agree, given the right alignment of technology transfer processes.  In brief, the characteristics of the transfer process differ between science-based and development-based regimes, with the former preferring “publications, patents, consultancy, and spin offs”, and the later preferring “joint R&D programs, participation in conferences, regional/professional networks, and [an] inflow of PhD students” (Gilsing et al. 2011). Within these regimes, there are also three main stakeholders for university knowledge transfer: “university scientists, technology transfer office, and firms” (Siegel et al. 2003). All of whom have varying levels of financial motivation.  There is an opportunity for industry to begin to agglomerate in an area where there is potential to develop their technology, such as in a CLL context. The impact of such agglomeration is explored in Section 2.4.4, Economic Clusters.  2.4.4 Economic Clusters Porter defines a cluster as “a geographically proximate group of interconnected companies, suppliers, service providers and associated institutions in a particular field, linked by externalities of various types” (Porter 2003). Some examples of these include wine in California, technology start-ups in Silicon Valley, and finance in New York.  24  “Untangling the paradox of location in a global economy reveals a number of key insights about how companies continually create competitive advantage” (Porter 1998). Leveraging the value chain model, clusters provide access to highly trained employees, the ability to leverage technology transfer for technology development, and suppliers for procurement. “Even when some inputs are best sourced from a distance, clusters offer advantages. Suppliers trying to penetrate a large, concentrated market will price more aggressively, knowing that as they do so they can realize efficiencies in marketing and service” (Porter 1998).   “Regional studies have [also] highlighted at least three distinct drivers of agglomeration: knowledge spillovers, input-output linkages and labor market pooling” (Delgado et al. 2010). Additionally, “industries participating in a strong cluster register higher employment growth as well as higher growth of wages, number of establishments, and patenting” (Delgado et al. 2011).  In short, economic clusters provide a number of benefits to the local region and companies alike.  A CLL environment would be able to assist with knowledge spillovers and labour pooling and, possibly, input-output linkages. This would also translate to improving participating firms’ competitive advantage through these aspects of the value chain.  2.4.5 Value Chain Analyzing a value chain enables a firm to determine how much additional value is generated by the firm’s activities and what costs are incurred for each activity. “Activities also provide the basic tool for examining the competitive advantages or disadvantages of diversification” (Porter 2008). These activities also have links to the environment: inbound and outbound logistics as well as operations have the greatest environmental impacts. Inbound and outbound logistics have transportation impacts, such as emissions and congestion (Porter & Kramer 2006). Operations are the largest culprit with the following impacts: • “emissions and waste, 25  • biodiversity and ecological impacts, • energy and water use, • worker safety and labour relations, • hazardous materials” (Porter & Kramer 2006). Figure 2.5 shows how these activities interlink and are classed as primary and support activities.   Figure 7: Value Chain The CLL targets operations while assisting other companies with their technology development and demonstrating their technology for commercialization. In this way, both entities are improving their value chains.  Branching off of their work regarding the value chain, Porter and Kramer also developed a connection between competitive advantage and social issues, as illustrated in Figure 2.6 (Porter & Kramer 2006). 26   Figure 8: Connection between competitive advantage and social issues To summarize, the value chain enables a firm to determine how much additional value is generated by the firm’s activities, what costs are incurred for each activity, and provides a method of analysis for improvement. There are a number of activities that contribute to environmental impacts, with the main activities being operations, followed by inbound and outbound logistics.   2.4.6 Technology Adoption Curve The concept commonly known as the “technology adoption curve” started as an adoption curve with five categories: innovators, early adopters, early majority, majority, and non-adopters (Bohlen & Beal 1957).  This was later integrated with Moore’s (1991) idea of a “chasm” that prevented technology from being adopted by the early majority. Table 2.3 outlines the differences between the five categories. Innovators obviously adopt new technology easily and laggards do not, but less obvious is that there is a “chasm” between the early adopters and the early majority. 27  Table 3: Technology adoption life cycle category differences (Moore 1991) Category Pursuit of Technology Information Required to Make a Purchase Reason for Business Purchase Innovator Aggressive New properties of devise Love of technology Early Adopters If there is a strong match Closeness of a match Change Agent – to get a jump on competition Visionary Early Majority If it is practical Well established references – want to ensure no disruption to organization Productivity Improvement Late Majority Need support Established standards Productivity Improvement Laggards Fine with what they have Will only purchase if deeply imbedded in a familiar technology Necessity This chasm is illustrated in Figure 2.7. “The early majority and late majority fall within one standard deviation of the mean, the early adopters and laggards within two, and … about three standard deviations from the norm, are the innovators” (Moore 1991).   Figure 9: Technology adoption curve (Moore 1991) While it is relatively easy to engage the innovators and then branch to the early adopters, engaging the early majority is fairly difficult due to a chicken-and-egg dilemma. As it turns out, “the only suitable reference for an early majority customer is another member of the early majority, but no upstanding member of the early majority will buy without first having consulted with several suitable references”(Moore 1991). 28  In addition to these problems listed with the early majority, companies also face a range of other potential barriers preventing the adoption of technology that a university could provide assistance with. These include further refinement of the product, commercially proving the technology for the first time, providing 3rd party verification for already proven technology that may have other 3rd party verification, providing local 3rd party verification at the project scale required, and assisting with local policy changes.  One of the goals of the CLL is to overcome barriers to technology adoption and bridge this “chasm” by becoming that “reference point” for other early majority customers to adopt the technology. Since UBC can be considered a typical campus, other typical campuses can assess technologies proven at UBC and consult numerous players involved in the implementation and operation of the technology that they are interested in. This way, institutions that fall in the early majority category will have a large number of reference points to consult for a given technology before implementing it. Since the early majority is “highly reference-orientated and highly support-orientated”, the ability to speak with not only the company that produced the technology, but also the groups who constructed, commissioned, and operate the technology is very valuable.   To conclude, technology adoption curve illustrates five types of technology adopters: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. There is a significant hurdle to overcome when crossing from the early adopters to early majority. Through the use of a living lab at a similar institution to others, technology can be proven to help bridge this hurdle.   2.4.7 Living Labs After searching through a number of journals and Google Scholar, the earliest documented reference of the term “Living Laboratory” for technological development was found to be in 1999 by a group from Georgia Institute of Technology. The written reference is now found in conference proceedings for the second annual workshop for “CoBuild’99” held at the Carnegie Museum of Art in Pittsburgh (Kidd et al. 1999, Ståhlbröst 2008).  29  Living labs are a venue for societal, environmental, and economical benefits to be explored through development and demonstration of projects. Living labs can also be conduits for the reduction of research silos through trans-disciplinary collaboration initiated by the diverse networks of multi-stakeholder governance teams.   They are also used for a variety of uses including infrastructure, work space, and information technology among other uses (UBC 2013a, CMU n.d., Ståhlbröst 2008). The focus of the reminder of this section is on how university living labs support the commercialization process. They assist this area due to the overlapping of living labs’ with technology adoption, technology readiness, and technology investments (Lemke 2009, Whittaker 2013). This is illustrated in Figure 2.8.    Figure 10: Intersection of Living Labs with technology adoption, technology readiness, partnerships, and investment 30  As Figure 2.8 illustrates, living labs contribute at the very stage where it is most difficult for technology to be adopted, where technology is ready to be demonstrated, and where there is a potential need for funding assistance. There is potential to leverage university, industry, and government funds together to increase the economic attractiveness of projects. There is also potential to aid with supporting economic clusters through technology transfer, which can also improve the value chain.  Froese and Rankin (2009) discovered through an analysis of public policy in construction of 15 different countries that an “impact on innovation was achieved through: promotion of long term value and performance; emphasis on performance versus prescription; local programs based on access to technologies; promotion of collaborations; and pre-market evaluations of products and processes” (Froese & Rankin 2009). This is, in part, what was assessed before living labs are adopted at UBC. 8 To conclude, university living labs can help with providing a test bed for developing and demonstrating projects. This also provides an avenue for the financing of a demonstration project that can lead to commercialization of the technology to be adopted by others. Additionally, given a multi-stakeholder governance model, they can also foster trans-disciplinary collaboration.  2.4.8 Summary   This section touched upon technology readiness levels, the technology transfer process, economic clusters, the value chain, the technology adoption curve, and living labs. These help to provide an insight into the technology development and transfer process.  Technology readiness levels can reduce the potential for untimely errors by providing an assessment tool to help guide when technologies should be implemented. In order to develop this technology to higher point of “readiness,” it is valuable to understand how technology can progress through university technology transfer.  The characteristics of the transfer process differ between science-based and development-based regimes, with the former preferring “publications, patents, consultancy, and spin                                                  8 See Section 3.4.1.2 and Appendices 8.7 and 8.8 for details on how these items are evaluated at UBC through the review of a slide deck and spider chart. 31  offs”, and the later preferring “joint R&D programs, participation in conferences, regional/professional networks, and [an] inflow of PhD students” (Gilsing et al. 2011).  Within these regimes, there are also three main stakeholders for university knowledge transfer: “university scientists, technology transfer office, and firms” (Siegel et al. 2003), all of whom have varying levels of financial motivation. This transfer process and the building of industry to support it could help build an economic cluster.  Economic clusters provide a number of benefits to the local region including access to highly trained employees, the ability to leverage technology transfer for technology development, and suppliers for procurement. Companies that are part of an economic cluster that will see higher wages, increased employment, innovation, and improved competitive advantage. Additionally, a CLL environment would be able to assist with knowledge spillovers and labour pooling and, possibly, to input-output linkages. This would also translate to improving participating firms’ competitive advantage through these aspects of the value chain. The firms participating in a cluster can improve their value chain to increase their competitiveness.  The value chain enables a firm to determine how much additional value is generated by the firm’s activities, what costs are incurred for each activity, and provides a method of analysis for improvement. Furthermore, there are a number of activities that directly link to environmental impacts, with the main activity being operations, followed by inbound and outbound logistics.  Understanding these linkages and impacts enables firms to make decisions on whether to make improvements or not.  The technology adoption curve illustrates that there is a significant hurdle to overcome when crossing from the early adopters to early majority. This is because “the only suitable reference for an early majority customer is another member of the early majority” (Moore 1991). Through the use of a living lab at a similar institution to others, technology can be proven to help bridge this hurdle.   Finally, university living labs can help provide a test bed for developing and demonstrating projects. This also provides an avenue for the financing of a demonstration project that can lead to commercialization of the technology to be adopted by others. 32  Additionally, given a multi-stakeholder governance model, they can also foster trans-disciplinary collaboration. 2.5 Knowledge Diffusion 2.5.1 Introduction  As the aim of this thesis is to provide a method of diffusing knowledge created in the CLL, a brief context on the types of knowledge and methods of creation is provided. This context includes themes pertaining to tacit versus explicit knowledge, knowledge modes in relation to heterogeneous and homogenous growth, and helices that have branched off of these modes for a broader understanding of stakeholders involved. Expanding upon these, various general barriers and enablers to knowledge diffusion are discussed.  This foundation will also aid as a double check that the type of BPM selected in Section 2.7.2, Model Evaluation, will assist with the type of knowledge transfer required. 2.5.2 Tacit (Implicit) versus Explicit Knowledge Tacit knowledge is “know how”; attempting to distil this knowledge would inevitably omit key components, whereas explicit knowledge is “formal and systematic” (Nonaka 1991). There are four methods to convey (transfer) this knowledge: tacit to tacit, explicit to explicit, tacit to explicit, and explicit to tacit (Nonaka 1991).  Tacit knowledge is more difficult to translate into explicit knowledge and can require a greater degree of expertise in achieving something that could be useful to others. This is also one of the types of knowledge transfer that is attempted in this thesis.  The UBC CLL assumes the continuous role of developing tacit knowledge and transforming it into explicit knowledge by developing procedures, methods of evaluation, and metrics for success.  It is important for organizations to understand that this is a continuous process, and that a state of “perfection” will never be achieved.  2.5.3 Knowledge Modes 1 – 3 and Helices 1 - 5 As knowledge systems progress, the methods to diffuse the information become simpler and more abundant at the same time that more systems for knowledge creation are introduced, which brings more complexity to the picture. This section introduces 33  knowledge modes and helices to describe increasingly complex forms of knowledge creation.  Mode 1: Knowledge is created and diffused within a specific discipline for largely academic interest and is homogenous in nature. Mode 2: “Knowledge is produced in context of an application”, it is trans-discipline and heterogeneous in nature (Gibbons et al. 1994).  It could be conceived that society’s current state of knowledge creation is actually in flux between mode 2 and mode 3. The definition of mode 3, as follows, encourages a more acute awareness of the direction that society is heading. Mode 3: “People, technology, and culture” become the “knowledge production system” in a “top-down policy-driven” and “bottom-up entrepreneurship-empowered” systems thinking environment to “catalyze creativity, trigger invention, and accelerate innovation across scientific and technological disciplines, public and private sectors” (Carayannis & Campbell 2011). Branching off of these modes, the term “helices: was coined to portray the stakeholders involved in the creation of new knowledge. As more helices overlap, a systems-thinking approach to knowledge creation also progresses. This progression is illustrated in Figure 2.9. As each additional helix is introduced, it overlaps with all those prior; which, in turn, results in a broader perspective for knowledge creation.  34   Figure 11: Knowledge creation helices and systems thinking development (Carayannis & Campbell 2011) This depiction of these states of knowledge creation shows a progression from thinking about a project only within the confines of a university toward a broader understanding of society and the impacts of people and new technology.  In summary, knowledge modes and helices offer a method of understanding knowledge creation systems and the layering of involvement with academia, industry, government, public and civil society, and the natural environment.  2.5.4 Barriers to New Knowledge Diffusion in Organizations There are two categories of barriers for new knowledge creation and diffusion: individual and organizational. Individual barriers include “limited accommodation” and “threat to self-image”, with the following definitions adapted from Krogh et al. (2002):  Limited accommodation: When people are introduced to a new sensory input, they attempt to compare and assimilate this to a previous experience. If there is no previous experience to associate this new sensory input, then an individual will try to include this in their experience. When the inclusion of a new experience with no reference point is too challenging, then a barrier arises.  35  Threat to self-image: Being presented with contradictory evidence that challenges one’s own knowledge base or being placed in an environment with people of different expertise can result in people “mentally checking out”. This occurs since people generally do not want to be wrong or may not want to point out faults in others, and may be uncomfortable working with people with different skillsets.  There are also four organizational barriers that can create difficulty in diffusing knowledge in organizations (Von Krogh et al. 2000):  The need for a formalized language: Unfamiliar terms might be used when converting personal tacit knowledge to explicit group knowledge. This can create confusion and reduce the ability for everyone to engage equally in the learning experience.  Organizational precedents: Stories surrounding how things worked (or did not work) in the past at the organization, or similar examples brought in from other organizations, could prevent people from developing new knowledge that would deviate from the norm.  Procedures:  Employees can lose motivation from creating new knowledge if it does not adhere to procedure. They are “rarely motivated to fight an ineffective procedure because they know that the more diligently they follow it, the less likely they are to experience the negative consequences of bucking the system—such as acquiring a bad reputation.” (Von Krogh et al. 2000) Company vision: If an idea is not thought to conform to the company vision, even if it is a great idea, it may never be developed.  Table 2.4 outlines how the BPMs created for this thesis could allow for reduction in these barriers. 36  Table 4: Potential Methods of Barrier Reduction for New Knowledge Creation Integrated into this Thesis  Potential Methods of Barrier Reduction Individual Barriers   Limited Accommodation CLL specific BPMs create a base of reference for others to be more receptive of such a program Threat to self-image Documentation is referenced as a starting point, rather than a strict model to follow, which may allow greater input from others Organizational Barriers   The need for formalized language A formalized language base is presented for talking about CLL Organizational Precedents A story is built with the UBC CLL as an organizational precedent Procedures The procedures provided are meant to be adapted to meet the needs of other organizations and should be continuously improved, this could reduce the notion that they cannot change Company Vision The notion that the vision should be grand and allow for Validation for whether or not these BPMs actually reduce these barriers is beyond the scope of the thesis.  Beyond the organizational difficulties, there are also inter-organizational difficulties in diffusing knowledge that is “hypothesized to affect the level knowledge ambiguity in alliances. [These are] tacitness, asset specificity, complexity, experience with competence, partner protectiveness, cultural distance, and organizational distance between partners” (Simonin 1999).  To summarize, there are also personal barriers (personal accommodation and threat to self-image), and organizational barriers (the need for a formalized language, organizational precedents, procedures, and company vision) that prevent new knowledge from being created and diffused. While there are barriers to knowledge transfer, some solutions have been provided, and Section 2.5.5 provides some additional methods of securing the creation and diffusion of knowledge.  37  2.5.5 Enablers to New Knowledge Diffusion in Organizations Although there are barriers to the diffusion of new knowledge, there are also enablers; these include instilling a knowledge vision, managing conversations, mobilizing activists, creating the right context, and globalizing local knowledge (Von Krogh et al. 2000):  Instilling a knowledge vision: This is a guide for the organization to understand what knowledge they should be creating. The CLL is still developing a vision for this. Managing conversations: The goal here is to provide a platform of openness, encouragement to participate and listen, and to be polite. For the UBC CLL, this was partly achieved by the forming, storming, norming, and performing stages of group development.  Mobilizing Activists: By supporting and mobilizing the activists who produce new knowledge and coordinate initiatives, the organization is able to further advance the creation of new knowledge. The UBC CLL has a Strategic Partnerships Office, which creates a significant amount of new documentation and processes and initiatives which are supported by the CLL Working Group.  Creating the right context: There are four kinds of interaction for developing this space: originating, conversing, documenting, and internalizing. Once new (and useful) knowledge is created, it needs to be shared and internalized within the company. UBC CLL achieves this by presenting new concepts for discussion and comments, iterating these concepts until they are accepted, then internalizing the results in the form of a document. One example of this is the spider chart in Appendix I  Spider Chart Criteria.  Globalizing local knowledge: Once knowledge is created, it should be shared with an effective mechanism within the company. In the case of the UBC CLL, this is mostly achieved through the use of a SharePoint intranet site and documentation sharing at meetings.  In addition to these enablers within organizations, there are also enablers for knowledge transfer between organizations. In reference to solutions for the last barriers listed in Section 2.5.4, it has been “shown that as companies deploy resources dedicated to 38  knowledge transfer from their alliances, smaller effects of tacitness on ambiguity occur and in conjunction with a drop in the effect of complexity, cultural distance, and prior experience on ambiguity” (Simonin 1999). In brief, there are various methods that aid with knowledge creation and resources should be invested in achieving all of these if sharing, further development, and potentially capitalizing on this knowledge interests the organization. These enablers could be used as tools for UBC and other institutions to further develop the CLL concept.  2.5.6 Summary There are two types of knowledge: tacit and explicit, with the former being the more difficult to convey. Knowledge modes and helices were introduced to offer a method of understanding knowledge creation systems and the layering of involvement with academia, industry, government, public and civil society, and the natural environment. Barriers that prevent new knowledge from being created and diffused were introduced, which included personal barriers (personal accommodation, and threat to self-image), and organizational barriers (the need for a formalized language, organizational precedents, procedures, and company vision). Potential barrier reduction methods for each of these in relation to this thesis were also introduced as a means to improve the chance of ideas from this thesis being adopted. Furthering the chance of successful knowledge creation and diffusion, specific enablers (instilling a knowledge vision, managing conversations, creating the right context, and globalizing local knowledge) were provided as tools for use in further developing the CLL within UBC and beyond.  2.6 Ethnographic Research9 2.6.1 Introduction “Arguments which put forward the need to consider context in research tend to support qualitative techniques” (Harvey & Myers 1995). However, there is a range of principle methods available including: action research, case studies, interviews, life history                                                  9 Ethnographic research conducted in this thesis involved collecting information about the operations of UBC’s “Campus as a Living Laboratory” (CLL) program, which involved information about the organizational practices and processes. The only information collected was facts on actual events, not about personal opinions. Chapter 5 includes more detail on the research conducted.  39  research, participant diaries, structured observation, and ethnographic research (Greener 2008). Among these, ethnographic research is most focused on a descriptive study to capture “a group’s customary ways of life” (Zaharlick & Green 1991). “These include ways of: • accomplishing the everyday events of daily life; • interpreting actions and interactions; • establishing, checking, interpreting, modifying, suspending, and re-establishing norms and expectations for daily life adhered to by members of the group; • the nature, range, and role of artifacts (i.e. materials, items of culture such as books, written materials, visual documents, buildings); • establishing and limiting the range of possible action; • constructing the roles and relationships that exist within the group; • defining the rights and obligations that membership in the group places on members; • developing the cultural knowledge required for appropriate participation; • and exploring how particular cultural spaces function within the social group (e.g. literacy, formal schooling, child care, ability, grouping)” (Harvey & Myers 1995). The research conducted in this thesis required an understanding of what was discussed at CLL meetings to create business process models, knowing what changes occurred over time to adjust the models, and suggesting improvements upon these models. Since ethnographic research provides a range of attributes that complement the research required for this thesis, it was decided to explore this methodology.   Ethnographic research immerses the researcher amongst the people or groups they intend to study. “The ethnographer enters into a social setting, and gets to know the people involved in it; usually, the setting is not previously known in an intimate way. The ethnographer participates in the daily routines of this setting, develops ongoing relations with the people in it, and observes all the while what is going on” (Emerson 1995). It is 40  also carried out in a variety of disciplines including anthropology, sociology, and psychology, among others.  In general, ethnographic research through observation and field notes involves self-reflection, selection of a research paradigm, building a local theory, collecting data (with field notes), coding data, and analysis (Schensul et al. 1999,  Emerson 1995). Additionally, ethnographic research can capture “a group’s way of life” by immersing the researcher in the environment through participant observation (Zaharlick & Green 1991). 2.6.2 Gaining Access to Data There are two methods for collecting ethnographic data: interactive and non-interactive. Interactive methods include “participant observation, key informant interviewing, career histories, and confirmation surveys”; while non-interactive methods include “non-participant observation, archival and demographic collection, and physical trace collection” (LeCompte & Goetz 1982a).  These are all described as follows: Participant observation: This has been a consistently popular method of collecting data and is therefore given greater attention in this section (LeCompte & Goetz 1982a, Zaharlick & Green 1991, Bernard 2006b).  The four roles for participants in research were developed by Gold in 1958  (Gold 1958). A later succinct summary of these roles are provided by Greener (2008): “[There are] four roles for participant observers: complete participant (covert observer), participant-as-observer (complete participant, but overt researcher too), observer-as-participant (primary role is researcher but can participate in work) and complete observer (no participation in work and little communication with those observed)” (Greener 2008). It has been acknowledged as early as 1955 that having some activity in a meeting that is being observed can increase the researchers “identification with the observed and [is] better able to become aware of the subtleties of communication and interaction (Schwartz & Schwartz 1995). There are a number of benefits to participant observation including the following: 1. “Participant observation opens things up and makes it possible to collect all kinds of data. 41  2. Participant observation reduces the problem of reactivity—of people changing their behavior when they know they are being studied. 3. Participant observation helps you ask sensible questions, in the native language. 4. Participant observation gives you an intuitive understanding of what’s going on in a culture and allows you speak with confidence about the meaning of the data. 5. Many research problems simply cannot be addressed adequately by anything except participant observation” (Bernard 2006b). Key informant interviewing: This method places the researcher with a person who possesses knowledge that would assist the researcher with their study (Zeldich 1962). Career histories: This provides a historical and cultural background on the participant through questions and dialogue.   Confirmation surveys: These are replicable studies with key informants that are conducted through structured interviews or questionnaires.  Non-participant observation: This involves the researcher to be concealed from the people being researched either from hiding or using recording devices (Pelto & Pelto 1978). Archival and demographic collection: These are written documents and symbolic records produced by and/or used by the group. Physical trace collection: This is the “collection of physical traces, the erosion and accretion of artifacts and natural objects used by people in groups” (LeCompte & Goetz 1982a). In short, there are a number of methods available for collecting ethnographic data. While participant observation may be a widely used method, there are other methods available to supplement and support it.  2.6.3 Data Collection – Writing Field notes Value is placed on audio and visual recordings in order to “record as much as possible and preserve to the greatest extent the raw data, so that the veracity of conclusions may 42  be confirmed by other researchers” (LeCompte & Goetz 1982b). However, audio and/or visual recording is not always the best option as it could change the atmosphere of the meeting and potentially not allow for a natural interaction; such as in the case for this thesis (more is described in Chapter 4). This being the case, more focus will be placed on hand-written notes.  When writing field notes, “tacit knowledge is perhaps the most important consideration in determining how particular observations are deemed worthy of annotation” (Wolfinger 2002). There are four methods available to take notes for later analysis including: “jottings, a diary, a log, and [field notes] proper” (Bernard 2006a): Jottings: These are short-form notes that can be taken throughout the day as a means to jog one’s memory. A diary: Much as it sounds; this is an actual personal diary to record how you, as a researcher, feel during the day in order to correlate it with your field notes and remove potential biases.  A log:  The log is a document of what you plan to do, what you actually did, and how much money was spent in achieving what you did. Field notes proper: Field notes fall into three categories: methodological notes, descriptive notes and analytic notes.  Methodological notes account for new findings during your day in the field, such as  cultural differences in relation to what time is appropriate to show up for appointments. Descriptive notes capture what is observed in the field, such as conversations, processes, actions, descriptions of surroundings, and notes of other written records observed. Analytic notes summarize a series of methodological and descriptive notes into a story of reflection on why something was occurring that required extensive time to figure out. “They are often the basis for published papers, or for chapters in dissertations and books” (Bernard 2006a). While taking field notes, it is also important to remember not to bias the notes being taken with one’s own viewpoint. To help accomplish this, it is important to take into account others’ standards and values and not one’s own (Emerson 1995). 43  In brief, there are four formats to take written notes in the field, with field notes proper being the main form, and descriptive notes being main category within field notes used. It is also important to remove one’s own biases while taking notes.  2.6.4 Data Analysis – Coding and Processing Once field notes are obtained, they will eventually need to be coded. In doing so, it can be helpful to first read over the field notes to see if there are emergent themes, codes they can be indexed into, or what the best method to analyze them could be. Techniques to code and process field notes include open coding, writing memos, selecting themes, focused coding, writing integrative memos, reflection, and computer processing (Emerson 1995, Bernard 2006a). Open coding entails “categorizing small segments of the [field notes] by writing words and phrases that identify and name specific analytic dimensions and categories” (Emerson 1995).  Memos are used to make note of a subject that may require deeper analytical understanding and can raise questions for answering later (Emerson 1995).  Selecting themes provides a method for starting to understand how to group the field notes and form the basis for “reading and coding” (Emerson 1995). Focused coding is implemented after selecting core themes in order to “[delineate] subthemes and subtopics that distinguish differences and variations” through a line-by-line analysis (Emerson 1995).  Computer processing can be used to analyze text or organize field notes once they have been entered into a database (Bernard 2006a). However, it has been expressed that there are a lack of tools available for systematically, and methodically analyzing the data (Attride-Stirling 2001). One of the methods to achieve this is through thematic networks where each data point aligns with a basic theme, organizing theme, and a global theme. An illustration of this structure is provided in Figure 2.10. It also makes using a thematic themed approach an option for integrating field notes into already established frameworks of themes.  44   Figure 12: Structure of a thematic network. Image adapted from: (Attride-Stirling 2001) In summary, there are a variety of methods available for coding field notes. Using thematic themes can be helpful to have already developed frameworks to organize the themes. Two of these potential frameworks are listed in the following section. 2.6.5 Classification Frameworks There are a number of classification frameworks in existence for a variety of purposes. The ones chosen to be built upon in this thesis were decided based on their extensiveness and the number of iterations that both frameworks have undergone, the two that were chosen were version 6.0.0 of the Cross Industry Process Classification Framework from the American Productivity and Quality Centre and the fourth edition of the Project Management Body of Knowledge from the Project Management Institute. These frameworks are later amalgamated in Chapter 4 to develop a CLL specific process framework. 2.6.5.1 Cross Industry Process Classification Framework  The cross industry process classification framework is developed by The American Productivity and Quality Center, which was established in 1977. They currently also have 11 industry-specific process classifications: Aerospace & Defence, Automotive, Banking, Broadcasting, Consumer Electronics, Consumer Products, Education, Electric Utilities, Healthcare Payer, Petroleum Downstream, Petroleum Upstream, Pharmaceutical, Retail, 45  and Telecommunications (APQC 2012, APQC 2013). After reviewing these, it was determined that the cross-industry classification would best encompass the activities of the living lab due to its breadth and non-specific nature. This classification is broken into 12 enterprise level categories and is provided in the following table. Table 5: Categories of the American Productivity and Quality Center’s Cross-Industry Classification FrameworkSM (APQC 2013) American Productivity and Quality Center Cross-Industry Classification Framework Category # Category Name 1 Develop Vision and Strategy 2 Develop and Manage Products and Services 3 Market and Sell Products and Services 4 Deliver Products and Services 5 Manage Customer Service 6 Develop and Manage Human Capital 7 Manage Information Technology 8 Manage Financial Resources 9 Acquire, Construct, and Manage Assets 10 Manage Enterprise Risk, Compliance, and Resiliency 11 Manage External Relationships 12 Develop and Manage Business Capabilities Additionally, there are over 300 sub-processes for these 12 enterprise level categories to develop a robust starting point to develop CLL framework.  2.6.5.2 Project Management Body of Knowledge The Project Management Body of Knowledge was developed by the Project Management Institute, which was founded in 1969 to further the “project, program and portfolio management profession” (PMI 2013). It has since developed a series of iterations of the well-respected Project Management Body of Knowledge. The nine key chapters that were the focus for building a CLL are listed in the following table. 46  Table 6: Chapters of the Project Management Institute’s Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMI 2008) Project Management Institute’s Project Management Body of Knowledge Chapter # Category Name 3 Project Management Processes for a Project 4 Project Integration Management 5 Project Scope Management 6 Project Time Management 7 Project Cost Management 8 Project Quality Management 9 Project Human Resource Management 10 Project Communications Management 11 Project Risk Management 12 Project Procurement Management There are over 100 sub-processes for these nine chapters that aid with ensuring that the majority of major process are covered for the development of the CLL specific process framework.   2.6.6 Summary In general, ethnographic research through observation and field notes involves self-reflection, selection of a research paradigm, building a local theory, collecting data (with field notes), coding data, and analysis. (Schensul et al. 1999, Emerson 1995). Additionally, ethnographic research can capture “a group’s way of life” by immersing the researcher in the environment through participant observation (Zaharlick & Green 1991). There are a number of methods available for collecting ethnographic data with participant observation being the most widely used method. While in the field, there are four formats to take written notes, with field notes proper being the main form, and descriptive notes being main category within field notes proper used. Once field notes are obtained, there are a variety of methods available for coding them. Using thematic networks can be helpful to combine with already developed frameworks to organize themes. Two of these potential frameworks are the Project Management Body of Knowledge and the cross industry process classification framework.  47  These two well-established frameworks help provide a solid foundation to later establish an amalgamated version for a CLL specific process framework in Chapter 4. Combined, there are 435 sub-processes upon which to base a comprehensive CLL framework.  2.7 Business Process Modelling  2.7.1 Introduction It has been suggested that business process modelling (BPM) arose in the early part of the last century with the introduction of the scientific method (Pidd 2000). This, then, developed into a visual means to understand the evolving complexities of the organization of a business. Within these models, the business workflow, decision points, and organizational layout can all be visually displayed.  This research uses BPMs to examine and explain the CLL.  2.7.2 Model Evaluation It was suggested by Kettinger, Teng & Guha (1997) that there are as many as 72 models to choose from. (Kettinger et al. 1997) This being the case, the proposed framework of Lou and Tung (1999) is used for selecting an appropriate BPM method. This involves first understanding the three attributes of the BPM method:  objectives, perspectives and characteristics. Objectives aid in defining the goal of BPM and provide increasing levels of granularity; perspectives, described by Cutis et al. (1992), outline the functional, behavioural, organizational and informational elements; and characteristics, as suggested by Lou & Tung (1999), pertain to formality, scalability, enactability, and ease of use. Summaries of these three attributes models are detailed in Table 2.7 through Table 2.9. 48  Table 7: Objectives of business process models (Luo & Tung 1999) Objectives of Business Process Models Objective Detail Function Communication Low Represents a snapshot of the business processes Analysis Medium Used to improve existing processes Control High Aids with monitoring the existing business processes to a finer detail for refinement As the models currently in use are at the “communication” stage, this research will aim to upgrade the models to the analysis stage. As concentrating too much in depth on any particular process may not allow time for viewing the broader picture of the CLL, the level of models produced will not reach the “control” stage.   Table 8: Perspectives of business process models (Curtis et al. 1992) Perspectives of Business Process Models Perspective Detail Function Functional Low Represents what processes are performed Behavioural Low Represents when the processes are performed Organizational Medium Represents “where and by whom in the organization” the processes performed Informational High Represents what information is “produced or manipulated” by a process Since a sub-objective of this research is to document and model the process in order to create improvements all the perspectives are almost equally important with a slightly greater emphasis on the functional perspective; without knowing what processes to model, there would be no models.  49  Table 9: Characteristics of business process models (Luo & Tung 1999) Characteristics of Business Process Models Characteristics Detail Function Formality Low - High How precise and consistent does the language need to be? Scalability Low - High “How large and complex a business process can the modeling method represent?” Enactability Low - High “Does a modeling method support automated enaction and process manipulation?” Ease of Use Low - High How difficult is it for people to follow? The strategy behind designing the models was to follow Apple’s concept of simplicity in order to allow for the greatest potential for uptake in use. As such, there is a focus on ease of use of the models, which reduces the level of detail. This is compensated for by writing more detail to describe the model in case people have further questions not immediately addressed by the model. Formality in the models used is strict for the types of objects placed in the model, but not as strict for the language used. For example, when a document is created, a document object must be used. For the purposes of this research, language in the models is consistent, but this does not need to be as strict for organizations—the language simply needs to relay what is occurring.  For purposes of replicating a “Living Lab” concept at another university or municipality, the focus of the BPM chosen should both provide an overview and a level of granularity that can help other organizations at the most difficult stages. It would appear from UBC’s case that the early and middle stages consist of rapid and consistent improvement, so the focus of models used for this research are targeted to reduce the learning curve for these stages.   To conclude, a model that allows for both communication and analysis will be developed for the early and middle stages of deployment. The purpose of using the communication objective is to provide a clear overall goal of what would be ideal. The analysis portion will help to assess how the proposed “Living Lab” structure would function within a new organization. The perspectives used at the various stages will also grow in level of detail through the implementation of the “Living Lab” concept. The early stages of the BPM will illustrate functional and behavioural characteristics. Informational and organizational 50  will soon follow once the “roles” of individuals have been discussed and developed. The characteristics used at the various stages will be easy to use, semi-formal, and scalable. Automation is not foreseen to be introduced at this point, so enactability is currently not being considered.  2.7.3 Comparison of Model Types In an effort to limit the number of models to be evaluated, the work of Giaglis, (G.M. 2001) is used to refine the number of models to 12. These models are broken into business process models (BPMs) and information systems (ISs) as listed in Table 2.10. Table 10: Business process and information system modelling techniques (Giaglis 2001) Business Process and Information System Modelling Techniques Business Process Modelling Techniques Information System Modelling Techniques Integrated DEFinition (IDEF) techniques (IDEF0, IDEF3) Entity-relationship diagramming Flow Charting State-transition diagramming Petri nets IDEF techniques (IDEF1x) Simulation Unified Modelling Language Knowledge-based techniques  Role activity diagramming  Giaglis (G.M. 2001) also describes a number of advantages and disadvantages of the various models which are outlined in Table 2.11 below.  It is important to note that both the flowchart and integrated definition (IDEF) are both listed as simple to use and that data flow diagrams are, not surprisingly, great for illustrating the flow of data. Since the models to be used will be simple and do not require advanced functions, there are advantages to both the flow chart and the data flow diagram. Also, the Input Control Output Mechanism (ICOM) can become confusing to understand for models with many inputs since this model relies on arrows to flow in and out of each process as inputs and outputs.   51  Table 11: Advantages and disadvantages of various business process models (Giaglis 2001) Advantages and Disadvantages of Various Business Process Models Model Advantage(s) Disadvantage(s) Flow Chart Familiar to people and easy to use Only provides basic functions Integrated DEFinition (IDEF)0/IDEF3 Simple to use Only uses the Input Control Output Mechanism (ICOM) and does not represent a state of time. Petri Nets Provided states and transitions and helps find idle time Unmanageable for complex business processes Discrete Event Simulation Is applied to a model to predict how it will function Not actually a model System Dynamics Used in simulation to determine the performance of a complex structure over time "Much emphasis is [placed] on feedback and control processes … hence unable to cope with stochastic elements … in real world business processes" Knowledge-based techniques "Provides a framework for the development of computer aided modelling tools endowed with automatic reasoning capability" Long time to implement and requires computer modelling Role activity diagram Most useful where the human element is the crucial resource Excludes the functional and informational perspectives Data flow diagram Excellent at illustrating the flow of data Does not show "work flow, people, events, … or information on decisions" A further breakdown of these models on their ability to provide various modelling perspective is detailed in the following Table 2.12. Building on a potential focus on the flowchart and the role activity diagram, it becomes apparent that combining the two would allow for all perspectives to be covered except for behavioural aspect of time. However, it is possible to compensate for this by providing another layer to the flow chart for time.  52  Table 12: Differences between modelling perspectives of business process models (Giaglis 2001) Differences between Modelling Perspectives of Business Process Models BPMIISM Techniques Function Behavioral Organization Information Flow chart     Integrated DEFinition (IDEF)0     IDEF3     Petri nets     Discrete event     System dynamics     Knowledge-based     Role activity diagram     Data flow diagram     Entity-relationship     State-transition     IDEF1x     UML     Legend: = Yes = Limited = No  In short, as outlined in Section 2.7.2, Model Evaluation, the model chosen needs to be able to provide increasing functionality as the organization evolves. There were several BPMs presented along with their respective advantages and disadvantages. These advantages and disadvantages were further highlighted through the perspectives lens as all four of these were thought to be valuable. The potential models have been narrowed down to flow charts and data flow diagrams. While they both have potential, preference is for flow charts based on the following reasons:  1. using swim lanes on the flow charts can capture the organizational perspective, 2. adding a time dimension on the flow chart would also capture the part of the behavioural perspective, 3. flow charts are already in use by UBC. 53  2.7.4 Summary The current and future use of BPMs for the CLL was reviewed using perspectives, objectives, and characteristics. This aided in determining what attributes a model should ideally possess. As this thesis is aimed to help with CLL development through the early stages, the perspective attributes that will be attempt to be captured in the models will be communication and analysis as they would be the most helpful for this stage.  Objective attributes needed were all four: functional, behavioural, organizational, and informational, since they all combined to tell a whole story. Characteristics focused on ease of use and, to some extent, formality and scalability.   Once these were determined, the advantages and disadvantages of the main BPMs and their respective ability to provide each of the four perspectives were reviewed, which resulted in the selection of a modified flow chart. As other organizations will undoubtedly have other titles for swim lanes, focus will be applied to the grouping of the elements, as opposed to who is actually doing the individual items. More research can be done as to whether or not the current groupings at UBC are the most efficient or not.   2.8 Conclusion This chapter covered a range of topics in varying depth, including barriers to sustainable technology adoption in campus infrastructure systems, an increase in available technology, technology development and transfer, knowledge creation and diffusion, qualitative research methods, and business process modelling. There are barriers to sustainable technology adoption in campus infrastructure systems, which include risks that could hinder projects due to uncertainty associated with performance, schedule, and cost. Additionally, these projects may not be feasible due to lack of available champions with expertise. UBC attempts to de-risk projects by leveraging UBC infrastructure investments with matching funds from industry and the government, by reducing potential liability on carbon taxes, and by using projects to contribute to research and teaching.  While there are potential barriers, the available technology for adoption is increasing as well as the accessibility to new technologies. 54  The technology development and transfer section amalgamates technology readiness levels, the technology transfer process, economic clusters, the value chain, the technology adoption curve, and living labs.  The technology readiness levels show how new technology move through different stages of maturity and in what way these stages can be used to assess when to introduce a new technology. The technology transfer process highlights how science-based and development-based regimes differ, and presents the differences between the three stakeholders for university technology transfer. Economic clusters provide a description of how a local region could benefit from them and how a CLL environment would be able to assist with knowledge spillovers, labour pooling and possibly input-output linkages. Additionally, firms within an economic cluster could improve their value chain to increase their competitiveness.  The technology adoption curve illustrates the significant hurdle to overcome when crossing from the early adopters to early majority and reasons behind this. University living labs were then introduced to show how they can branch between the technology readiness levels, the technology transfer process, economic clusters, the value chain, and the technology adoption curve. They achieve this by providing a test bed for developing and demonstrating projects. This also provides an avenue for the financing of a demonstration project that can lead to commercialization of the technology to be adopted by others.  Knowledge creation and diffusion explained the differences between tacit and explicit knowledge, and how knowledge modes and helices were introduced to offer a method of understanding knowledge creation systems. Barriers that prevent new knowledge from being created and diffused were introduced, which included personal barriers (personal accommodation, and threat to self-image), and organizational barriers (the need for a formalized language, organizational precedents, procedures, and company vision). Potential barrier reduction methods and enablers for knowledge transfer were also provided.  An overview of ethnographic research established the methods available for collecting data with a focus on participant observation as the most widely used method. Various formats to take written notes were also provided with field notes being the main form, and descriptive notes being main category used. Methods available to code the field notes 55  were outlined along with the benefit of using thematic networks amongst already developed frameworks to organize themes. Two frameworks were also proposed for use:  Project Management Body of Knowledge and the cross industry process classification framework.  The current and future use of BPMs for the CLL was reviewed using perspectives, objectives, and characteristics. This aided in determining what attributes a model should ideally possess. Once these were determined, the advantages and disadvantages of the main BPMs and their respective ability to provide each of the four perspectives were reviewed, which resulted in the selection of a modified flow chart.  56  Chapter 3. UBC’s Campus as a Living Lab 3.1 Introduction Any group that creates challenging goals for the future also requires a strategy to achieve them. In the University of British Columbia’s (UBC) case, the goals are to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 33% below 2007 levels by 2015, 66% by 2020, and 100% by 2050 (UBC 2010c). The strategy was to develop the University Sustainability Initiative (USI) and the Campus as a Living Lab (CLL) to assign authority and responsibility to help manage this endeavor. How did UBC develop these goals, and how could other institutions potentially use lessons from UBC’s experience to avoid the same pitfalls and reduce the learning curve? This chapter addresses these questions, beginning by providing a historical context of how the CLL sprouted in 2010 from sustainability initiatives that started as early as 1990.  Recent revisions of CLL processes are provided in the form of Business Process Models (BPMs) to give context on how the collaboration functions between UBC’s Building Operations and Utilities, external companies, and researchers. These recent revisions of BPMs set the stage to view earlier iterations of processes for the CLL that are illustrated with three signature projects: the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS), the Academic District Energy System, and the Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility. The examples begin with CIRS, which is a unique case since the planning started in 1999—well before the CLL term was coined at UBC, but was during a period when UBC was already doing activities that resembled the CLL. The CIRS example provides a snapshot of how things were handled early in the development of sustainability-driven university processes.. Following this, the Academic District Energy System example illustrates a more structured CLL system for soliciting proposals and determining which projects to evaluate and pursue. Then, the Bioenergy Research and Diversification Facility example shows how an unsolicited proposal flowed through the system and helped create more developed CLL processes. Key transferable characteristics are identified from the current processes and those used in the three signature projects and recommendations for improvement are provided. 57  3.1.1 Objectives The main objective of this chapter is to document and model the processes that have already occurred for three main projects: the CIRS, the Academic District Energy System, and the Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility.  3.1.2 Methodology The methodology for developing BPMs for UBC’s CLL entailed the following: • gathering documentation to develop BPMs, • obtaining feedback from USI and CLL members on the BPMs developed, • integrating the feedback on the BPMs, • outlining key transferable characteristics and recommendations for improvement. Data was obtained by collecting available documentation, meeting with individual people and attending meetings. Data was aggregated from online storage via SharePoint, and from asking individuals for documentation.  Meetings were also scheduled with individuals to help address questions regarding processes and to verify new processes created. The vast majority of meetings attended were the CLL Working Group meetings, but CLL Steering Committee, USI Student Sustainability Committee, USI Steering Committee, and the USI Regional Committee meetings were also attended. While the USI meetings were helpful to understand the overall working of the USI, it was the CLL meetings that provided the in-depth background needed to understand the processes involved. As of March 28, 2014, there have been 162 CLL Working Group meetings; the author has attended and taken notes at 36 of these meetings spanning over 16 months. The dates of the meetings attended are provided in Appendix E CLL Meetings Attended. 3.2 Campus as a Living Lab Background In order to understand how the CLL arrived at its current state, it is helpful to understand some of the background. The next three sections outline the development of sustainability at UBC, how the CLL arose, and the CLL organizational structure.  58  3.2.1 UBC Sustainability Prior to Campus as a Living Lab 1990-2008 As the CLL arose out of sustainability initiatives, is important to first understand about the development of sustainability at UBC.  The first spark of sustainability at UBC began with signing the Talloires Declaration in 1990 (UBC 2012d). This declaration arose from the convening of “twenty-two university presidents and chancellors in Talloires, France, to voice their concerns about the state of the world and create a document that spelled out key actions institutions of higher education must take to create a sustainable future.” (ULSF 2012) In 1997 “UBC became the first university in Canada to adopt a sustainable development policy” (UBC 2012d). This policy directed UBC to create Canada’s first sustainability office in 1998 which helped initiate a campus wide energy and water retrofit on 288 buildings that lasted from 2001 to 2008 (UBC 2012c, UBC 2008). As GHGs do not only occur on campus, but on transportation to campus, UBC created a universal transit pass for all students to reduce GHGs and transportation costs (UBC 2013e). Sustainability activities accelerated in 2006 when UBC developed a four year “Sustainability Strategy” and, just a year later, became “one of six founding signatories to the University and College Presidents’ Climate Statement of Action for Canada” (UBC 2006b, UBC 2010a). Sustainability then became part of UBC’s core mandate with the integration of three overarching goals in the “Place and Promise” plan (UBC’s overall strategic plan): 1. “Ensure UBC’s economic sustainability by aligning resources with the University vision and deploying them in a sustainable and effective manner. 2. Make UBC a living laboratory in environmental and social sustainability by integrating research, learning, operations, and industrial and community partners. 3. Create a vibrant and sustainable community of faculty, staff, students and residents (UBC 2012a)”.  Even though UBC had accomplished a number of sustainability initiatives, it was only after a review of UBC’s strengths was commissioned in 2009 that sustainability really started to become a focus.  59  3.2.2 UBC Sustainability Campus as a Living Lab Development 2009-2014 Following this sustainability pathway, the university conveyed a group to explore ways to extend sustainability at UBC that resulted in the creation of a “Sustainability Academic Strategy” in 2009. The results of the Sustainability Academic Strategy informed the creation of midlevel sustainability goals for UBC’s core mandate: Place and Promise.  These sustainability goals included the formation of a University Sustainability Initiative (USI) where the objective was to integrate campus-wide academic and operational sustainability efforts, including the creation of the CLL program and the “Agent of Change” initiative (aimed at effective change primarily through the campus’s procurement and supply chain mechanisms)  (UBC 2009b). The reason the USI developed a two-pronged approach was to not only target specific initiatives within the campus with the CLL, but to have influence on the larger community outside of the campus through as an Agent of Change. An example of a CLL initiative that acted as an Agent of Change is the CIRS building as it reformed policy by allowing solar aquatics within a shorter distance to a restaurant, and gang nailed two by fours to become part of a buildings wood flooring system. While the CLL was in its infancy, some members formed a strategic committee to determine potential sustainability goals for the university surrounding GHG reductions and energy use.  This group then returned to recommend the goals to reduce GHG emissions to 33% below 2007 levels by 2015, 66% by 2020, and 100% by 2050, which were then included in the climate action plan (UBC 2010c). The USI had its first formal meeting in March, 2010 and it was able to pass a budget for the program by the following April to support the initiatives (Robinson et al. 2010). This budget would also help support the CLL in starting to reduce GHG emissions. The first two projects to be completed have been the CIRS in 2011, followed by the bio-energy research and diversification centre in 2012.   3.2.3 Campus as a Living Lab, Current State The CLL has gone through a steep learning curve and is still rapidly evolving. The group that can be considered to be driving this is the CLL Working Group, which is comprised 60  of management from a diverse group of people from campus operations, the USI, and the Strategic Partnerships Office. An interesting aspect of the CLL Working Group meetings is that many members attend by choice, as opposed to a contractual or administrative obligation. It has been found that “mandatory, compliance-based approaches to introducing new systems appear to be less effective over time than the use of social influence to target positive changes in perceived usefulness” (Venkatesh & Davis 2000) This bottom-up approach combined with strategic support from the top may be contributing to the effectiveness the CLL has achieved.  Through this journey, the CLL has developed from a reactive model to a proactive model of planning. This is evident from the CLL Working Group being tasked to develop terms of reference for the CLL by the CLL Steering Committee in February 2013. This was taken a step further by the CLL Working Group to include clearer goals and delineations of authority for projects. Some of the partnerships and projects that UBC has engaged in include the following: Nexterra Systems Corp. and GE for the Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility, and Alpha Technologies Inc. and Corvis Energy Ltd. for energy storage (UBC 2013d). A more complete list is available in Appendix F Past and Current UBC Partnerships. 61  These developments have led to the current state of the CLL. Sustainability has a growing interest in the world and UBC is developing a strategy of tackling some of the tough challenges related to technology adoption through the CLL.  A number BPMs and documents have been developed by the CLL to assist with their efforts on these challenges. Where applicable, reference has been made to the original creator.  Figure 3.1 provides a legend for the symbols used in the BPMs presented in this thesis. All of the process models follow a flow chart with swim-lanes configuration.  Figure 13: Business process model legend 62  To illustrate how all the documents and processes intertwine with each other, an overview is provided in the Figure 3.2.     63   Figure 14: Overview of models and documents for Chapter 364  In order to develop an understanding of the structure of the CLL, an organizational chart for the overarching body of the USI is provided in Figure 3.3. This illustrates how the numerous committees for the USI, the CLL, and all the supporting roles are organized at UBC.  Some of the members of the USI steering committee include the following: • Provost & Vice President Academic (Chair), • Vice Provost Sustainability • Vice President Research and International, • Vice President Finance, Resources and Operations, • Deans, • Campus and Community Planning, • Strategic Partnerships Office, • Student Representatives. Since this committee has many senior level representatives, decisions that arise carry significant weight when being presented to the president. This is one example of how the top levels of the university support on-the-ground initiatives, as many items that are discussed in this committee arise from bottom-up initiatives. It is also very helpful to have support of a group such as this when taking items for approval to senior bodies, such as the Board of Governors or the Senate.  The CLL has unprecedented access to the senior decision makers at the university since all CLL committees report to the CLL Steering Committee and the CLL Steering Committee reports directly to the USI Steering Committee.  Details on the membership of the CLL Steering Committee, the CLL Working Group, the Project Steering Committee, and the Sub-Committees of the Project Steering Committee are included in this section and Section 3.4.2.2.  65   Figure 15: University Sustainability Initiative and Campus as a Living Lab organizational chart66  Additional interconnecting organizational charts for UBC Infrastructure Development and the President are available in Appendix G Additional Organizational Charts. These charts outline how the USI fits into the rest of the organizational structure at UBC.  The project management process is slightly more complex than the traditional project management process due to the iterations, budgeting, procurement and delivery, and commissioning being much more involved (Collins 2014). The level of engagement in CLL projects from various stakeholders varies through the project life-cycle phases. Figure 3.4 shows the level to which groups are typically engaged in a project during the various life-cycle phases. In addition to the traditional project phases, two additional phases are added (“Identify and Pursue Opportunities” and “Pre-Planning”) in order to show all CLL activities.  The addition of these was suggested from attending numerous CLL meetings and from input by committee members. The definitions to each phase are as follows:  1. Identify and Pursue Opportunities: During this stage, potential partners are identified through either a request for proposal or an unsolicited request and initial discussions begin. 2. Pre-Planning: This stage begins after a spider chart has been developed and the working group believes that the project shows merit, and it ends once a proposal is developed to go to the Board of Governors for approval.  3. Planning: After the project has been approved by the Board of Governors, the actual construction planning begins. 4. Construction: The construction phase. 5. Commissioning: During this stage, everything is verified to be working as per the initial specifications and any necessary adjustments are made to ensure that the project meets the specifications 6. Operation: The actual operation of the project. 67  7. Deconstruction: The deconstruction of the project, performed in a way that allows some of the parts to be re-used.  In addition to the phases of a project life-cycle, Figure 3.4 uses swim lanes to represent the key groups involved with the project. Details of these groups are listed as follows: • CLL Steering Committee: A large representation of various groups on campus including  people from campus operations, the USI, the Strategic Partnerships Office, Campus and Community Planning, UBC Properties Trust, deans, UBC VP Finance, a representative from the UBC Okanagan campus, and the University Neighborhood Association. There are 26 people on this committee. • CLL Working Group: A diverse group of people from campus operations, the USI, and the Strategic Partnerships Office. This group reports to the CLL Steering Committee and has many of the same members. There are 24 people listed on this committee with approximately 12 representatives attending meetings regularly. There is a high level of project management experience on this team.  • CLL Project Group: Typically chaired by John Metras (Managing Director of UBC Infrastructure Development) with representatives from UBC Building Operations, Infrastructure Planning (Project Services), Campus and Community Planning, University Sustainability Initiative, UBC IT, UBC VP Research and International, Strategic Partnerships Office, and a few professors. If a project enters the planning phase, this group will also oversee three more committees, which are the research, operations, and emissions committees.   • Industry Partner: The company or non-governmental organization submitting the proposal. • UBC Infrastructure Development: The group who manages the planning, design, construction and commissioning of many construction projects at UBC (UBC 2014e). • Operations: The group who maintains and operates the infrastructure. (UBC 2014d). 68  It is important to note that the level of engagement also represents the group that is most likely to be in charge of the project during a given phase. The project lead would begin with the CLL Working Group, ownership would then transfer to the CLL Project Group, then to Infrastructure Development, next to Operations, and then back to Infrastructure Development.10 In this way, there is always a clear project lead throughout the project life-cycle. Additionally, the CLL is working towards greater industry partner involvement once projects are in operation and this is shown in the industry partner swim lane with the “future state”. All of these points are illustrated in Figure 3.4.                                                     10 For the procurement and project management of large infrastructure and buildings on UBC campus, UBC Properties Trust is the lead. This group was not illustrated on Figure 3.4 as the figure is CLL Working Group Centric, and UBC Properties Trust does not attend these meetings. (They do attend the CLL Steering Committee Meetings.) 69   Figure 16: Campus as a Living Lab level of engagement through phases of project life cycle70  3.3 Industry Scenario As mentioned earlier, one of the goals of the CLL is to use UBC as a test bed for potential commercialization of products that can help with campus sustainability. UBC can be seen as a launching pad for technologies to move out of the lab and into main-stream use. It is also a goal to help other places in Canada and abroad benefit from technology by developing policies at UBC that can be replicated elsewhere. Conversely, there may also be practices developed in other countries, but not generally used in Canada. The CLL can help to introduce these.  Companies are also interested in fast, effective and value-orientated solutions to develop their products, and the CLL can be seen as a path of least resistance.  Currently it can be difficult for industry to commercialize products as they: • require further refinement, • are proven in conceptually or in the lab, but not commercially, • are commercially proven, but still require further 3rd party verification, • have 3rd party verification, but not at the scale or with an acceptable (local) 3rd party, • require changes in policy. As noted in Chapter 2, it is the demonstration phase within the technology readiness scale that UBC is most interested in when it comes to the CLL. Occasionally, exceptions to this are made for first-time projects in Canada or British Columbia that aid with adapting government policy to allow these projects.  The value proposition of the CLL to industry is that it can provide additional researcher capacity for development, assistance with potentially matching government funding with industry investment, monitoring and verification of results. UBC is also at a scale that is large enough to prove that a technology could work for other campuses or municipalities.  71  3.4 Current Business Process Models for Campus as a Living Lab, Unsolicited Proposal Requests 3.4.1 Introduction This section describes BPMs for current CLL processes, which provide a baseline for comparison to past projects in Section 3.6. Additionally, key documents that have been added to the CLL processes recently, such as a slide deck for companies to pitch their value proposition and a spider chart to analyze the merits of a potential project are listed in detail.      3.4.2 Process Modelling After UBC issued a Request for Information to develop strategic partnerships with industry in 2011, an increasing number of companies approached UBC wishing to collaborate. UBC had been following ad-hoc processes to pursue projects, but it found that a more formal structure was needed if it was to scale its CLL efforts successfully. The models listed in Chapter 3.4 provide an overview of how the CLL’s business processes for unsolicited proposal requests have developed since September 2010.  The BPMs presented are the Overall view of Unsolicited Requests for Project Plan Submissions (Figure 3.6), and the Unsolicited Project Plan Submissions Greater than $2.5 Million – September 2010 through Current Practice (Figure 3.8-Figure 3.10). These BPMs provide a demonstration of the hierarchical flow and illustrate the improvements that the CLL has contributed. The major participants, represented using swim lanes, have been described previously. 3.4.2.1 Overall View for Unsolicited Requests for Capital Projects While UBC has a formal process for CLL requests for proposals, for strategic sustainability reasons and in accordance to its innovative CLL approach, UBC also entertains unsolicited proposals. However, these are subject to a screening procedure that is as rigorous as the formal request for proposals process.  As explained in Figure 3.1: Business process model legend, there can be multiple layers to processes. Each additional layer increases the detail of the process. Two illustrations of this are provided in Figure 3.5 and Figure 3.6. Each model is numbered so as to 72  correspond to another layer in the model. For example, in Figure 3.5: Campus as a Living Lab project selection, the model is labelled “Ch.3.P-2.a” and more detailed layers are provided in “Ch.3.P-2.1.a” and “Ch.3.P-2.2.a”.  These are presented in Figure 3.8 through Figure 3.10 (including modifications made to the processes through three time periods). These figures demonstrate how it is possible to involve many layers to a process.    Figure 17: Campus as a Living Lab project selection The idea for the following BPM was adapted from an original model created by Brent Sauder, Director, Strategic Partnerships Office. Revisions from the original model include condensing the submission and initial review phases into one process and the addition of a project time component to illustrate typical durations.  The integration of the time length to complete projects was added in consultation with CLL committee members. As of 2013, unsolicited project plans were categorized into two sizes; those greater than $2.5 million, and those less than $2.5 million. For the first two years of the CLL, the threshold for projects required to go to the Board of Governors was $1.5 million—it was found that most projects were above these threshold values. Projects not requiring this approval were able to proceed much quicker than those that required it. In either case, the length of time required to complete a project can be longer than a company anticipates, so clearly expressing the process and a longer time frame at the start is important (Collins 2014).   73   Figure 18: Campus as a Living Lab – overall view for unsolicited requests for capital projects 74  3.4.2.2 Unsolicited Project Plan Submissions Greater than $2.5 Million –  September 2010 through Current Practice The first stage of an unsolicited request requires completing an online form and submitting a two-page proposal. This first step is crucial in ensuring that UBC’s objectives align from the beginning of the project and that it has been tailored to ensure that the information addresses specific questions. The proposal is then reviewed by the Strategic Partnerships Office, who provides feedback to the CLL Working Group for review. This is an important step since these reviews are carefully done by a diverse team of individuals who contribute various areas of campus expertise and who examine the four cornerstones of CLL projects:   1. “The integration of UBC's core academic mandate (research and teaching) with the University's operations; 2. Partnerships between the University and private sector, public sector or NGO organizations; 3. Sound financial use of UBC's resources and infrastructure; 4. The potential to transfer the knowledge UBC gains into practical, positive action applicable to the greater community” (UBC 2013b) If the working group considers the project to have potential, then the Strategic Partnerships Office will pursue the company for additional information to further review with the CLL Working Group. If the CLL Working Group agrees that there is a fit, then a champion for the project is identified (appointing a champion for a project can prove challenging when everyone already is balancing a full-time workload).  Once a project champion has been appointed, then a presentation is made to the CLL Steering Committee for final vetting before an informal steering committee is created to develop a memorandum of understanding. Once the memorandum of understanding is in place, four formal committees are struck to govern the project. The four committees are the following: 75  1. Project Steering Committee.  Membership: Chaired by the Managing Director of UBC Infrastructure Development with representatives from UBC Building Operations, Infrastructure Planning (Project Services), Campus and Community Planning, UBC Sustainability Initiative, UBC IT, UBC VP Research and International, Strategic Partnerships Office, and a few select professors (Evans 2014).  2. Research Committee. Membership: dependant on the project, but it will “typically be led by a professor who then invites 10-12 colleagues from various faculties” (Evans 2014). 3. Operations Committee.  Membership: “typically lead by Project Services, but with heavy engagement from building operations and other units within the UBC VP Finance Resources and Operations portfolio” (Evans 2014). 4. Emissions Committee:  Membership: “led by building operations, with partners from University Neighborhood Association and other stakeholder communities (depending on who may be impacted)” (Evans 2014).  Figure 19: Project Steering Committee structure The CLL Steering Committee consists of a group of individuals from various areas and levels of authority that provide another thorough review of the project. If UBC funding is required, then a detailed business case would also be created for institutional project approval.  For UBC, this body is the Board of Governors. The number of review points and the number of groups reviewing projects before presenting proposals to the Board of Governors helps to ensure that a majority of stakeholder representatives have had a 76  chance to provide input before a project is initiated.  Not only does this allow involvement in the CLL, but it provides many opportunities to refine the scope of a project, improves the value proposition, and develops the greatest number of leads for researcher involvement. Refining the scope of the project can help ensure that UBC receives just what they need at the time they need it. Improving the value proposition can occur by learning that a group on campus may have a spare component that can be integrated into the project at little or no cost. As integrating researchers on projects is a key component of the CLL, it is important to develop as many avenues as possible to find the right people to work on a project. Finding the right people can involve breaking down silos and fostering greater interdisciplinary collaboration. This can also be seen as a benefit of the CLL.   An illustration of this process is provided in Figure 3.8.  77   Figure 20: Campus as a Living Lab project plan submission for capital funds > 2.5M (September 2010 – January 2012)78  Over time, the Strategic Partnerships Office noticed that the business plans being provided by companies wanting to pursue projects often did not provide a value proposition. This led to the CLL trying to extract information from the company to try to develop a value proposition for them. As this is not the most effective use of the CLL time, an approach similar to the venture-capital model was applied to investigating potential projects that required a 12 page slide deck with a clear value proposition. This consisted of a template developed by the Strategic Partnership Office that was accepted by the CLL Working Group to be provided to companies that passed the first step of the process. This slide deck provided insight into the technology, how well the company knew UBC as a customer and whether or not the company fundamentally understood what UBC was trying to accomplish (Evans 2014). The slide deck was intended to easily relay the idea behind the project to multiple stakeholders in order to make a decision.  Appendix H Slide Deck for Unsolicited Proposals to Present  Value Proposition to the Campus as a Living Lab contains a full copy of the slide deck, a general outline is provided in Table 3.1. 79  Table 13: Slide deck overview for companies presenting opportunities to UBC (Evans 2012) Slide Deck (Ch.3.D-5.a) Slide # & Item Contents 1) Introduction slide Project Name, Company Name, Company Location, Company Lead 2) Presentation Outline Slide headings of 3 to 12 on this list 3) Executive Summary How UBC helps achieve the company’s corporate goals 4) Opportunity Positioning The key problem they are solving and why it is unlike any other product 5) Solution Overview Outlines the value proposition and core technology 6) Solution Example Describes how problems will be overcome 7) Program Plan Provides key resources, tasks and milestones 8) Program Partnerships Partnerships that will develop within BC and beyond 9) Product Cost Assumptions A detailed cost breakdown 10) Innovation Opportunities Researcher involvement opportunities, risks and barriers to commercialization 12) Operations and Maintenance Support Plan How support will be provided to UBC 12) Value-added Opportunities Other potential synergistic opportunities for UBC  It has been found in the CLL Working Group that the presentation of this format of a slide deck prepared has helped to clearly outline where the potential benefit is to UBC and to industry as a whole. There have been occasions where the technology may be cutting edge, but if a company is not able to produce a benefit to UBC and to industry as a whole, then the project would not be pursued.  The slide deck is obtained when requesting more information from the company and is shown in Figure 3.9 as highlighted in dark grey.  As shown, the slide deck is first reviewed by the Strategic Partnerships Office and then by the CLL Working Group. This adds a consistent, efficient, and effective aspect to the project review process.80   Figure 21: Campus as a Living Lab project plan submission for capital funds > 2.5M (January 2012 – June 2013)81  After the 12 page slide deck was introduced, the Strategic Partnerships Office developed a Spider Chart to further analyse potential projects. This Spider Chart provided 5 categories and 24 sub-categories for analysis with the purpose of being able to strategically determine whether or not a potential project is worth exploring further. Each of the sub-categories are rated a point value of “-1”, “0”, or “1” and the higher the score, the better the project assessment. The threshold for a preliminary pass is approximately 7 points. A basic outline is provided in Table 3.2 and a full set of criteria is available in Appendix I Spider Chart Criteria. 82  Table 14: Spider chart criteria for selecting projects to pursue at UBC Spider Chart Criteria (Ch.3.D-6.a) Category Item Operational Efficiency Capital Expenditure (UBC Cash)  Operational Expenditure (NPV over 10 year span based on operations budget.)  Risks (Whether they can be identified and quantified)  Identifiable Environmental Benefit  Guidelines  Leverage Dynamics (For every dollar UBC invests, how much would the company, government, and others contribute.) Research Excellence Publications (How long would it take to publish)  Research Funding  Leverageable Expertise within UBC  Enhanced infrastructure to support leading edge research  Engagement by research chair  Number of departments engaged  Knowledge Dynamics (M&A activity within technology field) Student Learning Undergraduate project work opportunities  Graduate project work opportunities  Recruit and retain top ranked graduate students and postdoctoral fellows  Entrepreneurship at UBC opportunities Community Engagement Cross-campus collaboration  Engagement with the University Neighborhood Association  Engagement with local industry  Engagement with other federal/provincial/municipal/not-for-profit Sustainability To be decided #1  To be decided #2  To be decided #3 Although the sustainability components for the spider chart are still under development, the economic and environmental aspects of projects are currently considered when evaluating projects. The development of the Spider Chart also made it possible to identify weaker categories and to investigate whether or not these areas could be strengthened. The Spider Chart comes after the 12 page slide deck review and is shown in Figure 3.10.  83  An illustration of how the spider chart could provide visual representation of strengths and weaknesses is provided on a sample project in Figure 3.11.  84   Figure 22: Campus as a Living Lab project plan submission for capital funds > 2.5M (June 2013 – Present) 85   Figure 23: Visualization from spider chart analysis identifying potential project strengths and weaknesses 86  3.4.2.3 Unsolicited Project Plan Submissions Less than $2.5 Million – September 2010 through Current Practice As previously mentioned in the “Unsolicited Project Plan Submissions Greater than $2.5 Million” section, for the first two years the CLL projects were delineated to either greater than $1.5 million or less than $1.5 million. For any project during this time period that fell below the threshold value, the CLL would not need the Board of Governors approval to pursue it. These projects follow the same rigour as the projects that are greater than $2.5 million in value.  The only difference is that projects less than $50 thousand total project cost must be provided reviewed by the contracting out committee and allocated to unionized workers on campus through a first right of refusal process. This process is shown in the Figure 3.12.   87   Figure 24: Unsolicited project plan submission for capital projects < $2.5M 88  3.4.3 Summary The CLL underwent a number of changes from September 2010 through to the present in order to adapt to a more proactive, rather than reactive, model of governance. This included developing assessment tools for varying levels of analysis for project fit within the UBC campus. Additionally, a project steering committee and three sub committees (research, operations, and emissions) were devised to provide support for projects that require it.  3.5 Current Business Process Models for Campus as a Living Lab Solicited Proposal Requests As with any large institution, there can be some regulation in regards to what opportunities should be solicited and what can be unsolicited. There is clearly a benefit to having both of these avenues open. Solicited requests allow for targeted proposals to be issued in order to compare potential partners on key metrics for a specific project that the institution has decided to undertake. Unsolicited proposals provide a method to continually review proposals for items that may not have been identifies by the institution and allow for perpetual engagement with industry.  3.5.1 Campus as a Living Lab, Initial Partner Selection Universities are constantly receiving requests for collaboration and demonstration of new technology. While the unsolicited request for proposal approach is helpful for a continuous intake of proposals, a request for information approach can be helpful to develop deep long term relationships with specific industry partners. Using a request for information is also valuable for maintaining fairness with selecting these long term relationships.  One of the first requests for information for the selection of strategic partners was conducted in 2011 (Sauder & Evans 2011). The BPM of this request for information is outlined in Figure 3.13. Criteria were determined at the beginning as to how finalists would be selected and there were a number of checks along this process.   89   Figure 25: Campus as a Living Lab – initial strategic partner request for information90  3.6 Project-Specific Business Process Models The projects discussed in this section follow a chronological order according to when the projects were first initiated in order to provide a clearer view of the development of the CLL. The first project to be initiated was the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS), followed by the Academic District Energy System conversion, and then the Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility. These are three of the four signature CLL projects currently completed on UBC campus. The other project (actually a number of smaller projects) involves continuous optimization of campus buildings to improve energy efficiency (UBC 2013a)—this project was not selected as the three projects selected already span the important CLL time periods and project types.   This section provides insight into the challenges that institutions face in trying to incorporate sustainability objectives into operational planning, as well as the solutions developed to overcome them. The work presented in this section represents the beginnings of a roadmap for leveraging institutional operations to help drive systemic change towards more sustainable technologies and practices. 3.6.1 Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability  CIRS was one of the first projects to be completed as part of the CLL and was the earliest one to commence. This project provides a high level overview of the challenges facing inter-institutional collaboration for projects and it is an artifact of how projects can benefit from having aggressive sustainability goals set early on. Lessons from this also provide a framework for adopting other high performance sustainability buildings.  3.6.1.1 Introduction CIRS symbolizes the fruition of a vision of Dr. John Robinson who first thought of the concept in 1999. Although CIRS was a $36.9 million dollar capital project, it is more than a typical research building (UBC 2009a).  The building was designed to meet four net positive goals (that is, the building creates net benefits to its surroundings in these areas rather than net detriments): “energy, embodied carbon emissions, operational carbon emissions, and water quality” (UBC 2011a). Additionally, CIRS was to go beyond having a laboratory in the building, and instead to have the building itself become 91  a “living laboratory”.  This started from the design of the building and carried through construction and operations. During design, a number of charettes (relating to design, water, day lighting, and energy) and following research (including an integrated design process) were used to aid with designing a high performing building with the latest off-the-shelf sustainable technologies. In addition, a charette was held in 2004 that solidified 22 design goals for the project (Fedoruk & Save 2012). This provided an impetus for CIRS to have three net positive performance goals encompassing water , energy, and carbon sequestration. The construction phase carried through with the development of a building information model (BIM) to help with the construction. (Even though this model proved to be underutilized, it did provide a valuable learning experience.)  The operating phase of the building allows opportunities for researchers to learn from the building through the aid of over 3,000 sensors integrated into the building for this purpose. Some of the other technology encompassed in the building to form a living laboratory are the following: heat capture from a neighboring building, a geo-exchange system, a reclaimed water system for sewage, a rainwater harvesting system for potable water and fire suppression, a green roof and living wall, natural ventilation, solar hot water and photovoltaic cells. Although some of the items designed have not been operating as effectively as planned (or in some cases, almost not at all), they do serve as part of a learning experience for high performance buildings.11  A significant amount of work was required to reach this point.  3.6.1.2 Business Process Models The BPM provided for CIRS in Figure 3.14 represents the actual process that occurred from the initial conception through to the implementation phase. Along CIRS’ 13 year journey from original conception through to occupancy, there were numerous leasons learned.  One of the goals of CIRS was to bring together a number of institutions for greater cross-pollination of ideas on sustainability. The challenges involved with multi-stakeholder projects involving multiple universities with equal authority caused delays to the project, which resulted in CIRS being relocated back to the UBC Vancouver                                                  11 For more details on the operational efficiency of CIRS, refer to Laura Fedoruk’s 2013 UBC Master of Science thesis titled “'Smart' energy systems and networked buildings : examining the integrations, controls, and experience of design through operation”  92  campus.12  Also apparent in Figure 3.14 is that the charettes held to aid with the design and systems of the building occurred after the second schematic design was already created for CIRS. This reduced the potential for any significant changes to the design of the building. Additionally, funding was obtained and tied to specific sustainable building components before these charettes, which predetermines some of the elements of the building. The benefit of this was that these components were not “value engineered” out of the building later on.  The actual timing of these events is illustrated in Figure 3.14. The definitions for the swim lanes presented in Figure 3.14 are presented below. • Leadership Team: This began as a smaller group of people committed to sustainability at UBC, and then developed into a steering committee in 2003. The steering committee included “representatives from local academic institutions, government agencies, academic researchers and industry” (Fedoruk et al. 2012). • Administration: Vice Presidents of the university and the Board of Governors. • Architect: The architect on the project. • Faculty / Researcher: The faculty member or researcher who develops and leads the idea. In CIRS case this was Dr. John Robinson. • External Partners: These are groups with whom strategic alliances were made.13 • External Project Funding: External funding sources who contributed financially to CIRS. These sources were all applied for by the leadership team.                                                   12 During this time the building design also changed from a square meter high of 10,000 to the current 5,675 (Fedoruk et al. 2012, UBC n.d.). 13 Modern Green is listed in the “External Project Funding” swim lane instead of the “External Partner” swim lane due to becoming a partner while construction had begun and providing the final investment in CIRS. 93   Figure 26: Campus as a Living Lab Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability example – actual implementation94  A full list of the chronological order of events for CIRS is provided in Appendix J Chronological Order of Implementation for the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability. 3.6.1.3 Summary CIRS was a challenging building for a number of reasons. It was developed to integrate the sustainable technologies available; for three years it had numerous stakeholders with equal input for the design; it was relocated twice; and it drastically changed size. Through this process, it provided a number of lessons learned for those interested in developing other high performance buildings: it is helpful to have charettes informing the project early on to aid with technology decisions; linking funding with specific building components can reduce the potential for them to be value engineered away;  and having one decision maker can streamline a project.  3.6.2 Academic District Energy System  The Academic District Energy System emerged from a larger initiative to review alternative energy sources at UBC. In addition to hiring a consultant to assist with producing the feasibility study, a local “Energy X Contest” was also created for people at UBC to pitch their ideas for additional options for UBC to pursue. This case study serves as a model of analysis of infrastructure options as well as a model for implementing a campus wide infrastructure system.  3.6.2.1 Introduction The Academic District Energy System is an $88 million project to convert the campus from steam to hot water. It started in June 2011 and is scheduled to complete the ninth and final phase in January 2016.  (UBC 2014a) (UBC 2011d) (Engineers 2014) The project entails the conversion of 131 buildings from steam to hot water, 14 kilometers of hot water distribution piping and a new 60 MW hot water Thermal Energy Centre.    This will result in “$5.5 million in annual savings including the cost investment for not reinvesting the aging steam system”, and a reduction of GHG emissions by 22 percent. (Giffin 2014,  UBC 2011d)   95  The catalyst that led to the implementation to the Academic District Energy System was a combination of ageing infrastructure, sky rocketing natural gas prices, newly implemented carbon taxes, public sector offset requirements and the campus looking for ways to reduce the carbon footprint. David Woodson (Director of Utilities at the time) then developed the Alternative Energy Committee and issued an RFI for alternative energy systems. This produced a lot of proposals some of which recommend a feasibility study.” (Giffin 2014) This formed the basis for issuing a request for proposal being for a feasibility study. This compiling of the complex request for proposals was a “project in itself” due to the level of detail required (Collins 2014).  Proponents were evaluated and then Stantec Consulting was hired and completing this feasibility study in March 2010 with the last revision in June 2010. This feasibility study culminated with several recommendations including: installing biomass (which was already underway), retro-commissioning buildings, continuous optimization, and converting the steam system to hot water. During the time that the feasibility study was being conducted, the Alternative Energy Committee also wanted to engage the greater campus community to take advantage of local expertise to explore options for improvements on campus and opened up the “Alternative Energy X Contest” for this purpose. The Alternative Energy Committee received 75 two page proposals, and ended up selecting 4 winners because of the breadth, completeness and practical feasibility of their idea’s. (UBC 2011b)  After the feasibility study and the contest were completed, a specialist in district energy was consulted and eventually hired to assist with the specifications.  3.6.2.2 Business Process Models The BPMs provided for the Academic District Energy System project in Figure 3.15 is the original process that was used and is still currently used for the request for proposal process.  There was one unique attribute to this process, which is that it concurrently ran an Alternative Energy X contest. The BPM for the Alternative Energy X contest is illustrated in Figure 3.16.  96  The definitions of the swim lanes for the models in Figure 3.15 and Figure 3.16 are listed below.  • Administration: Vice Presidents of the university and the Board of Governors. • Alternative Energy Committee: 15 people were on this committee, including representatives from operations, campus utilities, campus and community planning Clean Energy Research Centre, the Campus Sustainability Office, mining and engineering, and Dr. John Robinson (who would later become the Associate Provost, Sustainability at UBC). • Industry: Companies that responded to the request for proposal and the candidate who was selected to implement the feasibility study.  • UBC Community: Everyone at UBC, including students, faculty, administration, and the larger community.  As shown in the first BPM presented in Figure 3.15, the process spanned 23 months from initial inception to Board 1 approval. This included six months to develop the committee and design the request for proposals, and approximately twelve months to complete the feasibility study. The feasibility study was also developed with ongoing consultation with the Alternative Energy Committee as illustrated in Figure 3.15.  97    Figure 27: Campus as a Living Lab – project plan submission - Academic District Energy System example98  As mentioned, the Alternative Energy X contest was also initiated during the feasibility study to discover more opportunities for energy savings. The contest was designed so that the Alternative Energy Committee would be able to efficiently solicit ideas from the larger community in order to integrate these ideas into the campus operations plan. The contest had a $10,000 prize for the best idea to be implemented on campus and, in the end, four winners shared this prize (Giffin 2014). All of these teams “except one recommended converting from steam to hot water” (Giffin 2014). As illustrated in Figure 3.16, the Alternative Energy X contest was able to be initiated and completed during the time that the feasibility study was being conducted. The Alternative Energy X results were then integrated into Stantec’s feasibility study, which included biomass steam to hot water, and continuous optimization.   99   Figure 28: Campus as a Living Lab – project plan submission – Academic District Energy System example, Energy X Contest100  3.6.2.3 Summary In order to determine the optimum energy strategy for a campus, it is helpful to understand all the options available through a feasibility study and then narrow down the best options. This can be achieved by referring to experts on campus, but can be even more useful to combine these experts with third party consultation. Additionally, allowing an avenue for the larger campus community to provide ideas can render meaningful results for the campus.   3.6.3 Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility The Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility project represents a unique opportunity to apply the proposed modelling methodology, as it was initiated before the CLL processes had been formally established. This case study provides insight on lessons from implementing a project before a structured process was in place. It also was a starting point from which UBC would build for analyzing future projects.  3.6.3.1 Introduction The processes presented in this section focuses on the Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility, which is a signature CLL project, but is just one of many projects that have been undertaken within the CLL program. The Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility represents a $27 million investment in using a renewable resource for fuel and reducing the demand for imported power on campus (UBC, 2012b).  The Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility was designed to operate in two modes: Thermal Mode and Demonstration Mode. Thermal Mode was designed to produce heat in the form of steam at the rate of 20,000 pounds per hour. This would reduce UBC’s base requirement on natural gas heating, and reduce UBC’s GHGs by 9,000 tonnes per year (UBC 2014b). Demonstration Mode was designed to generate “approximately two megawatts of electricity and 9,600 pounds per hour of steam”, which would reduce “UBCs GHGs by 5,000 tonnes per year” (UBC 2014b). Although the plant is not currently running at full capacity, a significant amount of work was required just to reach this point.  101  Conversations regarding a Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility had begun in 2008 between UBC’s Clean Energy Research Center and Nexterra Corporation, with a decision to proceed with the project in 2009 (UBC, 2010c). This was all at a time when UBC was evaluating the best measures to pursue as part of an alternative energy feasibility report. Due to an opportunity to create the Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility at potentially zero cost to UBC, this project was chosen to proceed before the feasibility study was completed. Since this was one of the first projects to go through the CLL, the lessons learned would serve as a framework for all future projects.  3.6.3.2 Business Process Models The BPMs provided for this project include the original process that was used, as well as a comparison to what is currently being administered at the CLL.  The original process in Figure 3.17 illustrates how few checks and balances were in place before the adoption of more recent CLL practices beginning in September 2010. The comparison of processes in Figure 3.18 shows what new processes were included as a result of the learnings from the Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility.  The definitions of the swim lanes for the original model are listed below.  • Administration: Vice Presidents of the university and the Board of Governors. • Campus & Community Planning: “The urban planners, designers, engineers, public consultation professionals, building inspectors and sustainability experts dedicated to creating a vibrant, sustainable, live-work-learn community at UBC” (UBC 2014c). • Faculty / Research: The faculty or research member involved. • Industry Partner: Company contracted to implement the Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility • Institutional Project Approval: In UBC’s case, this is the Board of Governors. • Legal / Contract: The legal department. 102  • Operations: The building operations department.  It should be noted that the current models only extend up to the first “institutional project approval” phase, which the equivalent is “Board 1” on the Bio-energy Research and Diversification Facility example shown in Figure 3.17. It can also be seen that there is no governing group that oversees the project and that Operations has only been included to assign resources rather than act as a collaborator. More of the differences are easier to view in the comparison example in Figure 3.18.  103   Figure 29: Campus as a Living Lab – project plan submission – Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility example 104  Shortly after construction began on the Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility, a meeting was held on February 4th, 2011 to debrief on the process undertaken (UBC 2011c). This meeting documented the following eight emergent themes: 1. stakeholder engagement, 2. funding, 3. managing expectations, 4. legal, risk assessments, 5. champions and project managers, 6. due diligence, 7. information sharing, 8. communications From these themes, 12 recommendations emerged: 1. “Expand public consultations process to include other elements of community engagement (resources on engagement here: http://tamarackcommunity.ca/). Proactive consultation is required early and often. 2. Provide sufficient funding and/or resources for prefeasibility and feasibility resources, project management, and due diligence and evaluation. 3. Identify secure project funding earlier in the project life cycle to prevent a ‘moving target’ when approaching the UBC [Board of Governors] 4. Inform all stakeholders of process steps, key decisions, milestones, and all UBC expectations at the outset.  5. Identify and share expectations and needs of all stakeholder groups at the project outset. 6. Host project kick-off with all players. 105  7. Share broad vision, knowledge, context, and objectives of project, creating a consistent message and understanding of the project for all stakeholders. 8. Identify and adequately resource project managers and key champions within the organizations.  9. Assess all potential projects using technical and sustainable criteria, as well as against alternative possibilities to ensure adequate due diligence. Ask the right questions. 10. Coordinate communications with all stakeholders; ensure announcements are timely and have been approved by all stakeholders.  11. Develop risk assessment and evaluation document to guide/frame various interactive or negotiated steps in the development of the Project  12. Need a Process road map that lays out the Action Steps required to Action a Project” (UBC 2011c)  From these recommendations, the current models were developed. Figure 3.18 illustrates the improvements made on the processes. It can be seen that there were significantly fewer checks in place throughout this process, as noted by the grey highlighted items that were not in place for the Bio-energy Research and Demonstration Facility project.   106   Figure 30: Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility actual process comparison with current CLL process 107  3.6.3.3 Summary In summary, the Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility project represents a unique opportunity for exploring the development of the CLL and early lessons. Immediately following the implementation of the Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility, eight themes for improvement emerged with 12 specific recommendations. These have since been implemented along with a significant increase of other checks and balances, including a preliminary review of the company and proposed technology via a slide deck and additional review using a spider chart analysis. These have all contributed to better understanding of potential projects and the risks involved.   3.6.4 Summary CIRS was a challenging building for a number of reasons. However, it does demonstrate that it is helpful to have charettes informing the project early to aid with technology decisions; that linking funding with specific building components can reduce the potential for them to be value engineered away; and that having one decision-maker can streamline a project. The Academic District Energy System showed how long of a process it can be to evaluate campus energy options and how both third party consulting and the campus community can collaborate. From the Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility emerged the foundation for current CLL processes. This was provided by a post-project review with all participants who determined the need for frequent checks and balances and greater stakeholder engagement. This also leads to a better understanding of potential projects and the risks involved. 3.7 Organizational Transformation 3.7.1 Introduction The CLL was an institutional change in the way that UBC had previously thought about both operations and sustainability. The ability to tie these two together—along with an opportunity to leverage campus infrastructure as a test bed for sustainable technologies to be proven for commercialization—could be challenging for people to accept and implement. In order to overcome this, an organizational transformation is required to develop the foundation for a successful CLL experience. In order to aid with this 108  transition, key transferable characteristics, recommendations for improvement, and a model for self-evaluation are provided.   3.7.2 Important Attributes There are a number of important attributes that could potentially be useful in implementing a CLL in other institutions: 1. Bottom up and top down support for the program is needed to be truly effective. 2. Vision, mission, and objectives specific for the CLL need to tie into larger university objectives. 3. Process maps to illustrate the flow of a project from initial contact to acceptance can help with knowledge transfer, analysis of what is occurring, and improvements. 4. Multi-stakeholder committees can provide a depth of expertise and expand potential connections for research projects. 5. Tools to analyze opportunities for alignment with campus objectives aid with strategic decision making and can shift the project focus from being reactive to proactive This can be viewed as a constant cycle of improvement for the CLL, illustrated in Figure 3.19. 109   Figure 31: Model for self-reflection 3.7.3 Recommendations for Improvement Although there are a number of positive attributes to the CLL, there are some items that could be improved. The current items for improvement and suggestions for improvement are listed below. 1. Due to time constraints of committee members and the limited number of people involved, only “obvious” connections or people who the committee members already know are contacted for engagement in projects. This is partly due to it being very difficult to know what everyone on the campus is working on or has expertise in.  a. Have a more diverse range of people present at meetings and/or a website with listings of opportunities could increase engagement. b. Involve someone with knowledge about how to include the social context of sustainability in projects. This could generate more inter-disciplinary learning.  2. Industry partners can be more interested in the development and commissioning of projects, but there can still be quite a bit of learning to be completed during the operation phase. a. Engage industry for involvement deeper into the operational phase.  110  3. Sustainability indicators for the Spider Chart tool to analyze projects are not yet completed. a. These are important for more rigorously analyzing CLL projects through a sustainability lens 4. There have been some projects that have not performed as well as originally anticipated. a. Include performance as part of the contract to reduce risk.  3.7.4 Key Transferable Characteristics There are a number of key transferable characteristics that can be extracted from this chapter. These will also be later utilized in Chapter 5 in the creation of generic BPMs. A list of these characteristics is as follows: 1. organizational structure for the USI and the CLL, 2. diverse multi-stakeholder committee membership structure, 3. process of categorizing projects based on size (high-level view), 4. process of project evaluation (due diligence) and approval (mid-level view), 5. tools for project evaluation: slide deck and spider chart, 6. selection of a research champion, 7. process for selecting strategic partners, 8. design goals and charettes for high performance buildings, 9. linking funding to sustainable technologies so that they are not value engineered out the equation, 10. contests to solicit ideas for alternative energy or otherwise, 11. linking feasibility studies to contests for the wider community to contribute ideas. 111  3.7.5 Summary There are a number of important attributes that emerged, including increasing support for the CLL, aligning CLL goals with larger university objectives, improving processes, developing multi-stakeholder involvement, and developing strategic decision making tools. It was also found that there could be improvement in the current UBC CLL practices. Some of these improvements include increasing the diversity of the people in the multi-stakeholder meetings, having industry partners stay involved longer into the project life cycle, developing sustainability indicators for projects, and linking performance to project contracts to potentially reduce risk. A number of key transferable characteristics were also extracted from this Chapter in order to be utilized later in Chapter 5.  3.8 Conclusion The CLL has developed over a long course of time that stretches back to 1990. In 2009, the advancement of the CLL was accelerated due to a number of strategies and efforts. The CLL Working Group and Steering Committee is part of a broader University Sustainability Initiative (USI) that encompasses many stakeholders. The focus of the CLL Working Group is largely on identifying and pursuing opportunities and on the pre-planning phase of projects’ life-cycle. The concentration on this phase places the CLL in the best position to accelerate sustainable technology commercialization by positioning the UBC campus as a test bed.  The CLL projects fall into two main categories: unsolicited and solicited. Due to an influx of unsolicited requests, the CLL needed to adapt to a more proactive, rather than reactive, model of governance. In order to achieve this, assessment tools for varying levels of analysis were developed to evaluate project fit within the UBC campus. Additionally, a project steering committee and three sub committees (research, operations, and emissions) were devised to provide support for projects that require it. There was also a rigorous approach for selecting partners through a solicited approach.  In deciding how to potentially improve on future projects, three case studies were used: CIRS, the Academic District Energy System, and the Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility. These case studies were chosen as they gave a reference case to a 112  building, an analysis of campus wide infrastructure options and a project. They also represent energy consumption, transmission, and generation.  CIRS demonstrated how it is helpful to have charettes informing the project early to aid with technology decisions. Additionally, linking funding with specific building components can reduce the potential for specific items to be value engineered away, and having one decision maker can streamline a project. The Academic District Energy System showed how long of a process it can be to evaluate campus energy options and how both third party consulting and the campus community can collaborate. From the Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility emerged the foundation for current CLL processes.    There are a number of important attributes that emerged, including increasing support, aligning goals, improving processes, developing multi-stakeholder involvement, and developing strategic decision making tools. Improvements to current CLL practices were also touched upon and key transferable characteristics were provided for use later in Chapter 5.  113  Chapter 4. Analysis of Campus as a Living Lab Activities 4.1 Introduction This chapter describes the application of an ethnographic study to analyze the CLL. This was achieved by collecting 517 aggregated meeting items (topics discussed) from 36 CLL Working Group meetings across eight categories and 40 processes. These processes were either adapted from the frameworks developed by the Project Management Institute and the American Productivity and Quality Center, or created specifically to capture issues relating to the CLL. From the key findings of this study emerged proposed processes to be implemented in the generic BPMs in Chapter 5. 4.1.1 Objectives The main objectives of this chapter are to identify themes from CLL Working Group meetings, and to review these themes for key transferable characteristics.  4.1.2 Research Questions As there was little literature about the CLL, hands-on experience was needed to understand and collect data about the program. To provide this foundation, the author requested permission to attend the CLL Working Group, the CLL Steering Committee, and the USI Steering Committee. This was to understand how they achieve the overall sustainability, operational, and research goals of UBC. In order to answer this, the research questions that the author posed were the following: • What occurs in the CLL Working Group and Steering committee meetings? • How does this translate into future action? • When do these follow-up actions occur? • How does the CLL Working Group interact with other committees? • What aspects of these meetings can be captured in BPMs? 114  • What other forms of tacit or explicit knowledge helpful to the implementation of living labs can be acquired? Answering these questions is important to the objectives of this thesis, which are to document and model the processes, reconcile the models with emerging processes, and suggest improvements. 4.1.3 Methodology Selection After reviewing various research methodologies for analyzing CLL meetings in order to answer the research questions posed, an ethnographic research methodology was selected. It was found that an ethnographic approach would best facilitate a concrete understanding of the subject matter. In the case of the CLL meetings, the subject matter was the development of processes; methods to decide which projects to pursue; and the development of collaborative relationships between industry, operations and researchers. Examples of this subject matter include the following: 1. Flow charts developed by Brent Sauder to visually capture the process for unsolicited proposals as they flow through the CLL.  2. Spider chart developed by Iain Evans to assess individual characteristics that are important to the CLL so as to decide whether a project should be further investigated and potentially pursued.  3. Contracts with industry as they develop from lessons learned and from feedback from operations and researchers.  The Campus as a Living Lab is constantly evolving and improving. Members are questioning current practices in order to make strides forward. Thus, the CLL can be viewed as a learning system; all parts of the system involve some form of learning.  At the heart of this system is the CLL Working Group. Consisting of academic members, UBC administrators, students, external partners, meetings among these and a succession of town hall meetings, the Working Group emerged from the “Sustainability Academic Strategy” as a mechanism for learning, clarifying existing knowledge, and conceiving of new ideas. Although the goal of this group may not be to “learn” as much as it is to “do” 115  as in the form of achieving campus sustainability goals, there is constant learning occurring.  In order to further develop already existing documents and processes created by and available for the CLL internally, it is important to understand what types of interactions are occurring. After attending the first CLL Working Group meeting on December 6th, 2012, it was observed that there was a high degree of tacit knowledge that could be difficult to capture without attending regular meetings. Additionally, it seemed as though the research questions would not be able to be answerable with any type of questionnaire or from only a couple interviews with individuals. Therefore, an ethnographic research methodology (introduced in Section 2.6) was chosen. 4.1.4 Ethnographic Study of Campus as a Living Lab Activities 4.1.4.1 Introduction This section discusses the author’s participation role in the meetings, the data collection, and the field note coding. 4.1.4.2 Observer as Participant As described in Section 2.6.2, there are a number of methods available for collecting ethnographic data. While participant observation may be a widely used method, there are also four types of this observation: complete participant, participant-as-observer, observer-as-participant, and complete observer. For purposes of this thesis, the author’s role was originally a complete observer, but quickly morphed into an “observer-as-participant” role since there were a number of times that the committee welcomed the author’s suggestions and opinions. About halfway through obtaining these observations, the author gave a presentation to the committee on research that addressed the comparison of modelled energy consumption versus actual energy consumption on five UBC buildings. For the purposes of this meeting, the author briefly became a participant-as-observer. As this research extended over 16 months, the group became increasingly familiar with the author. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the processes were the subject of observation, not the people participating in the meetings. In this way, there was 116  potential for group members to be more open than if the individuals themselves were being studied. As noted in Section 2.6.2, having some activity in a meeting while also observing that meeting can increase the researcher’s “identification with the observed” and can help the researcher to be “better able to become aware of the subtleties of communication and interaction” (Schwartz & Schwartz 1995). 4.1.4.3 Data Collection Before writing any field notes, 98 weekly CLL Working Group and 20 monthly Steering Committee meeting minutes and associated documentation were reviewed. This facilitated an understanding of the evolution of the CLL, and provided a foundation for developing a method of writing notes. There were notes on project updates, project assessment, project funding, recruitment of researchers for projects, and finding projects for researchers and students.  The period of data collection in the form of field notes stretched over 16 months from December 6th, 2012 through March 27th 2014. During this period, 36 CLL Working Group meetings and four Steering Committee meetings were attended by the author. As the meeting notes themselves must remain confidential, they are not provided in this thesis; however, information about these meetings, such as the high-level topics of conversation and the periodicity with which they occurred was synthesized in a dataset and analyzed as discussed in the following sections. The dates of the CLL Working Group meetings attended and the corresponding number of data points are also included in Appendix E CLL Meetings Attended. Audio or video recordings were never requested due to the potentially sensitive nature of some of the meeting content. Additionally, even if they were allowed, it would change the tone of the meetings, which would skew the results of the research on what processes naturally occur.  For the purposes of consistency in the data collection where the meetings were attended by the researcher, every attempt was made to capture the content of the conversation during regular intervals (i.e., every five minutes). However, sometimes an “in-camera” session occurred, or topics changed rapidly within the intervals, so this was not always 117  possible. At other times, it seemed as though there were more items of importance that arose within short periods of time, so more notes were taken. The meetings ranged from 45 to 90 minutes in length with the majority of meetings taking longer than 60 minutes.  As the CLL Working Group had been first organized in April of 2010, the 16 months of meeting attendance spanned over one third of the group’s existence. In the hopes of gaining a deeper understanding about the development of the social entities under consideration (in this case, living labs), the theory of expansive learning developed by Engoström (2001) was reviewed. This theory indicates that “a full cycle of expansive transformation may be understood as a collective journey through the zone of proximal development of the activity” (Engeström 2001). Engoström elaborates, “activity systems take shape and get transformed over lengthy periods of time. Their problems and potentials can only be understood against their own history.” An objective of this thesis is to explain what is occurring within the CLL and to evaluate its past and current trajectory. As the CLL developed over a long period of time, the Engoström theory was helpful to understanding this social entity.   In addition to collecting data in the form of field notes, meeting minutes were collected from past meetings of the CLL Working Group, CLL Steering Committee, and USI Steering Committee. BPMs were already developed and tools for strategic decision-making, including the spider chart and slides for assessing projects, are detailed in Section 3.4.2.2. 4.1.4.4 Coding Field notes  Notes taken from the meetings were formatted to allow for easier reference later; this involved coding the notes taken from each interval (approximately five-minutes) into discrete “data points”.  Collected together in an Excel spreadsheet, each data point refers to the date a meeting occurred and whether or not a particular issue was covered in that meeting, which is marked as an “x” to affirm coverage. An example of a covered issue would be an update on a project or information about students looking for research projects. An illustration of this formatting is provided in Figure 4.1. 118   Figure 32: CLL Working Group field note example The original plan was to plot each data point against a classification system comprised of a combination of the American Productivity and Quality Center’s (APQC) cross industry process classification framework and the Project Management Institute’s (PMI) Project Management Body of Knowledge. Although these frameworks were found to be useful, an initial trial of plotting of 67 data points from five random meetings showed that these frameworks did not adequately capture all of the data point categories, and a number of additional sections were added to facilitate coding. Further, it was found that approach of plotting data points in 517 columns across more than 573 rows of category headings, processes and sub-processes lead to more detail and was more cumbersome than was originally envisioned. To simplify the analysis, the field notes, the two frameworks from APQC and PMI, as well as the 67 data points plotted from five random meetings were reviewed in order to utilize a thematic network approach as explained in Section 2.6.4. Figure 4.2 illustrates how these were originally plotted and how new items were also added in a green italic font when they emerged. These new items represent a new process that was not listed with the APQC or PMI frameworks.  119   Figure 33: Original plotting of data points across the APQC and PMI frameworks Using this spreadsheet approach, a simplified eight-category, 40-process, CLL Process Framework was developed to plot all the 517 data points from the field notes. This process was iterative, as each time a data point did not seem to fit in a sub-process, a new sub-process was created. Consequently, all data points previously plotted were reviewed to ensure that the new process received the appropriate number of entries in the spreadsheet. This occurred 7 times throughout this process.  Additionally, once items were plotted, data points in each process were checked for consistency.   The resulting framework is listed in Table 4.1. The framework from which each process was adapted is listed, along with the category from which it was copied or adapted. For example, process “(3.2) Evaluate risk, determine and implement risk mitigation strategies” was adapted from the APQC process 10.0 and PMI’s process 11.0. Additionally, it changed sufficiently enough that it was also determined to be a new item. On the other hand, category “(2.0) Develop and Manage Business Capabilities” is the exact wording listed in the APQC framework category 12.0, so this is noted with the letter “A” for exact match.  This framework represents a thematic network with a global theme (CLL Process Framework), organizing themes (categories), and basic themes (processes).   120  Table 15: The derivation of the Campus as a Living Lab-Specific Classification Framework Campus as a Living Lab Process Framework Creation [Legend: “A” = Exact Match, “B” = Adapted From, “C” = New / Substantive Changes Made] Category / Process APQC Section PMI Section New (1.0)  Develop Vision, Strategy and Assessment Tools B 1.0   C (1.1)  Develop, evaluate, establish, and re-evaluate vision and mission B 1.0    (1.2)  Develop, evaluate, establish, and re-evaluate high level goals B 1.0    (1.3)  Develop, evaluate, establish, and re-evaluate objectives B 1.0    (1.4)  Develop, evaluate, establish and re-evaluate organizational structure, reporting, and governance B 1.2.5    (1.5)  Develop, evaluate, establish and re-evaluate tools for assessing projects     C (1.6)  Learn from others and develop ideas for improvement     C (2.0)  Develop and Manage Business Capabilities A 12.0    (2.1)  Develop, evaluate, establish, and re-evaluate human resource management, planning, policies, and strategies B 6.1 B 9.0  (2.2)  Manage financial resources A 8.0    (2.3)  Develop, evaluate, establish, publish, and re-evaluate process management B 12.0    (2.4)  Develop, evaluate, establish, and re-evaluate knowledge management practices B 12.5    (2.5)  Develop, evaluate, establish and re-evaluate metrics for post-implementation of projects     C (2.6)  Plan meetings     C (3.0)  Develop Opportunities     C 121  Campus as a Living Lab Process Framework Creation [Legend: “A” = Exact Match, “B” = Adapted From, “C” = New / Substantive Changes Made] Category / Process APQC Section PMI Section New (3.1)  Develop, and evaluate opportunities B 2.0   C (3.2)  Evaluate risk, determine and implement risk mitigation strategies B 10.0 B 11.0 C (3.3)  Evaluate opportunity alignment with vision, mission, goals, and objectives B 2.1.4    (3.4)  Identify requirements, objectives and resources for opportunities   B 3.4 C (3.5)  Develop, and evaluate, and present business case(s) B 12.2.3.1.5 B 3.4  (3.6)  Develop requests for information/proposals; negotiate, establish, and manage contracts B 4.2   C (3.7)  Develop, evaluate, and obtain funding B 12.2.3.1.5    (4.0)  Assess the Environment     C (4.1)  Assess internal needs, capabilities, and opportunities     C (4.2)  Evaluate the internal economic, environmental, and social landscape     C (4.3)  Assess external needs, capabilities, and opportunities B 3.0    (4.4)  Evaluate the external economic, environmental, and social landscape     C (5.0)  Manage Researcher Opportunities     C (5.1)  Identify projects for researchers / students looking for collaboration opportunities     C (5.2)  Identify research champion     C (5.3)  Identify potential candidates for research opportunity available     C (5.4)  Engage researchers already working on projects external to Living Lab for information / updates     C (5.5)  Engage researchers already working on projects internal to Living Lab for information /     C 122  Campus as a Living Lab Process Framework Creation [Legend: “A” = Exact Match, “B” = Adapted From, “C” = New / Substantive Changes Made] Category / Process APQC Section PMI Section New updates (6.0)  Relationship Management B 11.0    (6.1)  Develop, evaluate, and manage external Campus relationships B 11.0   C (6.2)  Develop, evaluate, and manage internal Campus relationships B 11.0   C (6.3)  Develop, evaluate, establish, and re-evaluate internal and external relationship service B 5.0   C (7.0)  Marketing and Communications B 3.4    (7.1)  Develop, evaluate, establish, and re-evaluate marketing and communications strategy     C (7.2)  Implement marketing and communications strategy   B 10.0 C (7.3)  Share information about upcoming and past events/meetings within committee     C (8.0)  Project Management   B 3.0  (8.1)  Receive updates and provide feedback on project scope   B 5.0 C (8.2)  Receive updates and provide feedback on project schedule   B 6.0 C (8.3)  Receive updates and provide feedback on project cost   B 7.0 C (8.4)  Receive updates and provide feedback on project human resources   B 9.0 C (8.5)  Receive updates and provide feedback on project risk   B 11.0 C (8.6)  Receive updates and provide feedback on project procurement   B 12.0 C       123  All of the data points were then plotted across these processes. An illustration of this is provided in Figure 4.3.   Figure 34: Example of plotting data Points across Campus as a Living Lab Process Framework 4.1.4.5 Summary In summary, data collection occurred over the span of 16 months beginning on December 6th, 2012 and lasting through to March 27th, 2014. A total of 36 meetings were attended, which resulted in 517 data points. A CLL-specific framework for coding the field notes was developed from an amalgamation of categories, processes, and sub-processes from the APQC and PMI frameworks. Upon analyzing this dataset, a number of key findings emerged.  4.2 Key Findings 4.2.1 Introduction In order to distill the data after plotting of data points across the CLL Process Framework, quantitative and qualitative methods were used.  124  4.2.2 Quantitative Analysis For the qualitative portion, an examination of the location of the data points was carried out. Perhaps not surprisingly, the category with the most data points was category “(3.0) Develop Opportunities” followed by “(4.0) Assess the Environment”, then “(1.0) Develop Vision, Strategy, and Assessment Tools”. These meetings generally tended to juggle priorities, from reviewing opportunities to developing assessment tools and ways to improve. As of recently, the meetings have prioritized the need to assess energy on campus, so category (4.0) has taken the second largest portion. These results are provided in Figure 4.4.    Figure 35: Percentage of data points that were listed in each category A full breakdown of the number of data points listed is provided in Appendix K. A review of how priorities shift over time was completed to understand how the CLL Working Group balances their workload (Figure 4.5). All categories were first graphed together to identify any interesting relationships. Patterns for three categories in particular 125  emerged. For the first 260 data points, it would appear that the categories “(3.0) Develop Opportunities” and “(1.0) Develop Vision, Strategy, and Assessment Tools” are in constant flux. This fluctuation indicates movement between conducting the work itself and trying to improve strategies for the work that is conducted. From data points 261 onwards “(4.0) Assess the Environment”, and “(3.0) Develop Opportunities” are in flux. This is due to the current urgency to develop a comprehensive energy plan for UBC campus.  126    Figure 36: Campus as a Living Lab Working Group’s flux of priorities from December 6th, 2012 to March 27th, 2014  127  A simpler representation of the flux in priorities described above is shown in Figure 4.6. This is meant to extract the flow between “Develop Opportunities” and “Develop Vision, Strategy, and Assessment Tools” for the first 260 data points listed in the previous Figure 4.5.   Figure 37: Campus as a Living Lab Working Group flux of priorities Figure 4.6 demonstrates how the CLL Working Group has been in a state of “catch-up” and that the shift from reactive to proactive has taken longer than may have been anticipated. This could also be partly due to the fluctuating workload of each member of the CLL Working Group and the lack of consistent time available to the group, undeterred by outside pressures. One opportunity would be to budget and plan for a CLL Working Group strategic retreat. 4.2.3 Qualitative Analysis This section provides a qualitative analysis based on the following method:  1. development of a thematic network and,  2. development of sub-themes based on categories in the thematic network. As previously mentioned in Section 2.6.4, there is a lack of tools available for systematically, and methodically analyzing the data and that using a method of developing a thematic network helps to overcome this (Attride-Stirling 2001). Thematic 128  networks begin by aligning every data point with a basic theme, then every basic theme with an organizing theme, and finally a global theme. An illustration of this structure is provided in Figure 4.7. It also makes using a thematic-themed approach an option for integrating field notes into already established frameworks of themes.   Figure 38: Organization of a thematic network. Image adapted from (Attride-Stirling 2001) The thematic network that emerged is the CLL Process Framework, which is provided in Table 4.1. In this framework, the basic themes and organizing themes are respectively referred to as processes and categories.  In order to potentially uncover sub-themes, field notes were reviewed relative to the categories organizing themes. This was accomplished by scanning the category in the Excel document for data points and then reviewing each respective data point and taking brief notes. An illustration of this cyclic process of discovering themes and reviewing organizing themes is provided in Figure 4.8. 129   Figure 39: Discovery and review process for themes As each organizing theme was reviewed a number of sub-themes emerged. Interestingly, some of these sub-themes also overlapped.  A representation of this is provided in Figure 4.9.   Figure 40: Emergence of sub-themes from reviewing data points These emergent sub-themes are listed below according to each of their respective CLL Process Framework category. Reasons why each sub-theme may present a potential problem and suggestions for improvement are also provided. Although some of the improvements are underway, they could be developed further. Additionally, the suggestions for improvement are not meant to be exhaustive, but merely a starting point for future analysis. 130  3. Develop Vision, Strategy and Assessment Tools a. Terms of reference. These have been developed and serve as a helpful guide for group activities. b. Reactive to proactive. Projects are continuously arising and deciding priorities can be difficult. It is helpful to allocate more time to the development of assessment tools and of project selection principles in order to get a step ahead. It could prove beneficial to share these with potential partners as well as the wider UBC community. A similar strategy, as listed in “Side-by-side opportunity review” in “Developing Opportunities,” could also be useful. c. Key challenges. There are a number of occasions where the need to identify all key challenges was mentioned, a task which some of the meetings addressed. There could be potential to develop a shared list with the campus community. d. Technical guideline integration. Even though UBC has its own entity for administering projects, namely UBC Properties Trust, it can be difficult to align ideas with the technical guidelines. A transparent and seamless process for integrating defensible guidelines could be helpful. This would also help integrate the “step ladder” approach for ensuring that every building constructed is more efficient than the one built before it. e. CLL governance. There are other projects on campus being administered that are not part of the CLL Working Group. It would be beneficial to have an overarching governance model so as to provide an opportunity for collaboration.  4. Develop and Manage Business Capabilities a. Process development. There currently is no formal structure in place for continuous optimization of CLL processes. Any improvements are completed through the Strategic Partnerships Office. It is not helpful to have so many processes that the committee becomes overburdened, so some additional 131  processes could prove worthwhile.  This is also the case for improving process for engaging students b. Knowledge transfer. There is potential to lose information when projects change hands from pre-design, design, construction, and operation. The development of a system to capture this information could be helpful.  There are often major delays with publications as well, not only for the CLL. It would be helpful to manage the flow of information from the CLL and integrate a more expedient publication process. c. Metrics for success. It is currently difficult to determine success when it is achieved as an overarching guideline for doing so does not exist. Perhaps a general set of metrics with baselines could be useful.  d. Human resource management. The capacity of people on the committee has reached its limit and there is still more work that can be accomplished. Additional human resources could aid with further development of the CLL.  5. Develop Opportunities a. Side-by-side opportunity review. Opportunities are generally reviewed one at a time as opposed to side by side. There could be an opportunity to reduce the spread of time across projects if they can be reviewed side by side.   b. Inter-disciplinary business case review. As reviewing a business case requires technical as well as business acumen, there could be a method to have an inter-disciplinary team of researchers ready to develop business cases – perhaps via a website. c. Myriad of opportunities. There is always potential to integrate some new technology before projects such as buildings reach the design stage. It could be helpful to have a list of items to be integrated ready, waiting, and already approved.    d. Integrated presentations. Presentations are currently provided as needed and somewhat ad hoc. It might be helpful to structure a series of linking 132  presentations in sequence to develop a better committee-wide understanding on technologies and how they can fit into the economic, environmental, and social landscape. e. Technical project evaluation. Much of the evaluation of projects involves assessing the technical aspects of projects, so it is helpful to have an expert on CLL Working Group. There usually is one present, and if the expertise is not directly available, it is sought out. f. Construction and operation cost linkage. Operational cost does not appear to be accounted for when a building is placed for tender. It could be beneficial to link these in order to develop the “step ladder” approach to continual building improvement as already suggested. This can be achieved by determining baseline operating cost according to building type and then charging the department for any overages and reimbursing for any underage. This would be a similar strategy to what the City of Vancouver is using to promote retrofits in older buildings and energy efficiency in new buildings. (Vancouver 2013) g. Full building energy analysis. It is not currently possible to understand where all the energy during building operation is being consumed. This makes it more difficult to implement an automated demand response system. Perhaps through expanding UBC’s network, a solution could be found, or maybe one could be developed in-house. 6. Assess the Environment a. Scalable human capital. There are times when the workload suddenly increases and this can be taxing on the committee members. An on-demand system for generating a sudden influx of researcher capacity could be beneficial. This could be achieved through a web portal job board that is dedicated for research. Such a system could also be linked to government researcher funding like MITACS and NSERC. b. Deferred maintenance. There is currently an estimated $500 million of deferred maintenance that is being spent for building operations. Implementing part of 133  the operational cost into the initial building budget could help mitigate further increases. c. Incentivise Deans. The rationale is the same as for “Construction and operation cost linkage” under “Develop Opportunities”.  d. Rising energy demand. UBC is quickly reaching maximum capacity on BC Hydro lines to campus. Although, solutions are currently being proposed, it is mentioned here since it has been on the agenda for a number of CLL Working Group meetings. e. Building sensors. Sensors for buildings are not always connected to the monitoring system. There is an opportunity to find a solution to this.  7. Manage Researcher Opportunities a. Researcher engagement. There is fortunately a pipeline of potential projects and other opportunities for researchers to collaborate on. However, the timing with which these opportunities flow does not always align. The solution to this may be the same as for “Scalable human capital” in “Assess the Environment”. b. Research champions. There is often a search for someone to become a research champion. It could be useful to identify researchers who are already willing and ready to participate in projects. This way, not only can researchers be selected by project availability, but projects can be developed according to researcher availability. 8. Relationship Management a. Inter-institutional collaboration. There is expertise around the globe in various areas that we could leverage knowledge from. It could be helpful to develop a network of knowledge leaders in various areas that the CLL can rely upon for advice. Automated demand response (automatically adjusting energy flow by regulating energy demand through systems such as a smart grid and integrated building energy management) would be one such area for further exploration.  134  b. UBC internal collaboration. There are a number of initiatives within campus that have opportunities for CLL collaborations available, but they are not being leveraged. The only recent start of collaboration with UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) is an example of this. Having a roundtable discussion with all the groups on campus could allow everyone to better appreciate the opportunities for collaboration. 9. Marketing and Communications a. Bridging the gap. There are questions about how to report the successes and failures of the CLL to the larger community. Having a strategic communications plan, and budget in place to execute this plan could assist. Additionally, regular sustainability updates on UBC homepage could be implemented. b. CLL identity. There is not currently a definitive CLL brand that fits within the larger sustainability brand. The CLL could benefit from having its own ‘brand’ identity, connecting other groups working on CLL initiatives with cohesive marketing. c. Marketing budget. The CLL does not always have sufficient marketing and communications support. This could be resolved by allocating funding to a specific CLL marketing budget line. 10. Project Management14 a. Project issues. There are a number of projects issues that are not being captured to provide points of learning for others. This links to “Bridging the gap” in “Marketing and Communications”. In summary, the CLL Process Framework developed in Section 0 was utilized to review for sub-themes. This was accomplished by scanning the every CLL Process Framework category in the Excel document for data points and then reviewing each respective data                                                  14 “Project management” occurs more or less in the form of updates to the CLL Working Group. Although brainstorming does occur for potential solutions, it is the function of UBC Project Services to carry out the project management itself, and UBC Operations to oversee the operating of buildings and projects. There are members representing both groups on the CLL Working Group, so progress updates are provided.  135  point and taking brief notes.  From this emerged the sub-themes, which provide a basis of recommendations and is further fleshed out to provide a number of key transferable characteristics in the next section.   4.2.4 Key Transferable Characteristics from Key Findings The proposed transferable characteristics from this section are items that can be combined with key transferable characteristics in Section 3.7.4 in order to develop generic BPMs for Chapter 5. Key transferable characteristics were identified from Section 4.2.3 and are listed below with a reference to which item in the extensive numbered list from which they were obtained. • Develop strategic documents  o Continually optimise strategic documents (2a) o Terms of reference (1a) o Project selection principals (1b) o Metrics for success (2c) o Processes to follow  Continual optimization of CLL processes (2a)  Integration of new technical guidelines for campus (1d) • Administration o Implement a governance model to capture all groups who may potentially work on CLL projects (1e) o Ensure adequate human resources are available (2d) o Develop a database of researchers ready to work on projects, and projects ready for researchers (4a & 5a) o Ensure the committee has technologically savvy members (3e) o Create a strategic marketing and communications plan (7a) 136  o Establish a CLL identity (7b) o Have a marketing and communications budget (7c) o Identify research potential research champions early (5b) o Create relationships with other groups within the campus who are interested in CLL projects (6b) • Knowledge transfer o Share general challenges (1c) o Share successes and failures (7a & 8a) o Cultivate relationships with other institutions to share information about new technologies (6a) • Be strategic o Review proposals side-by-side to reduce stretching of resources and select most viable options  (3a) o Have an inter-disciplinary business case review team on hand (3b) o Develop a list of technology items ready to be integrated (3c) o Develop a presentation schedule for committee learning (3d) o Forecast potentially major campus issues and work on a plan early (4d) • Integration with campus o Link construction and operating cost into building budget (3f & 4b) o Incentivise deans to improve operational efficiency of buildings (4c) o Monitor energy usage of buildings and ensure equipment installed to monitor energy usage is installed and connected (3g & 4e) 137  4.2.5 Summary The quantitative analysis showed that the majority of the CLL Working Group’s time is absorbed by tasks related to the development of opportunities, assessing the environment, and developing a vision, strategy, and assessment tools. It is a delicate balance to juggle these items while trying to remain on-course. To assist with strategizing, likely recommendations would be a dedicated budget line CLL Working Group and time allocated for a strategic retreat.  The qualitative analysis provided a number of sub-themes, challenges, and partial solutions for further exploration. These are all meant to be a starting point for a rigorous analysis and business case development, but they also include ideas for proposed processes. 4.3 Conclusion To conclude, over the span of 16 months beginning on December 6th, 2012, a total of 36 meetings were attended. After taking field notes from these meetings and coding them, a thematic network emerged in the form of a CLL Process Framework. This framework was partly derived from an amalgamation of categories, processes, and sub-processes from the APQC and PMI frameworks. A quantitative and qualitative analysis was then completed based on the data obtained. The quantitative analysis showed that the majority of the CLL Working Group’s time is absorbed by developing opportunities, assessing the environment, and developing a vision, strategy, and assessment tools. The qualitative analysis revealed a number of sub-themes, challenges, and partial solutions for further exploration. These results were then categorized into key transferable characteristics to be integrated in Chapter 5.   138  Chapter 5. Proposed Generic Living Lab Processes 5.1 Introduction The focus of this chapter is to extract lessons learned and key transferable characteristics from the University of British Columbia’s (UBC’s) “Campus as a Living Lab” (CLL) program and to propose replicable processes for other universities and municipalities to expand their sustainable practices in similar ways. This chapter provides a summary of the thesis in the form of Business Process Models (BPMs). As there was a learning curve with implementing a living lab program at UBC, the goal of this summary is to potentially shorten this learning curve for others and accelerate the adoption of a CLL strategy. As this chapter is intended to be suitable for reading as a stand-alone section, some content already presented has been repeated.   CLL is the focus of this research because it is believed by the author to be a practical and effective way to advance the development of new sustainable technologies.  The CLL concept assists with the need to develop innovative technologies in order to become more sustainable. There are many steps along this process, including idea creation, implementation, and alteration of mainstream processes. One of these development steps is to pilot new technologies for widespread adoption. Although there are barriers to this, one way to alleviate them is to provide companies with an avenue to test their technologies within the UBC environment—using the University’s campus and community itself as a testing ground. This UBC “testing ground” also happens to be at the size of a small municipality, which provides a scale that could be useful for wide applicability of tested technology. Through this process, barriers to the implementation of these technologies can be identified and solutions can be developed. It is through these innovative technologies that greater energy conservation, sustainable energy production, water conservation, and larger overall greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions can be realized. An example of one UBC CLL project is the district energy system implementation, which changes the current system from steam to hot water and will potentially reduce GHG emissions by 22 percent while saving $4 million per year (UBC 2012c).  139  The BPMs presented in this chapter culminate the research provided in Chapter 2 to Chapter 4:  • Chapter 2 provided a basis for selecting flow charts as the BPMs of choice to illustrate processes. The chapter additionally developed a foundation for the methodology on data collection and analysis in the form of ethnographic research.   • Chapter 3 delivered a general overview of the BPMs utilized at UBC as well as reasons why improvements have been integrated into these models.  • Chapter 4 presented an ethnographic study carried out over 16 months, where the author observed and participated in 36 CLL Working Group meetings to learn about the CLL processes being employed and to culture ideas for improvement.  5.1.1 Objectives The main purpose of this chapter is to create the foundation of a generic “roadmap” for other institutions to be able to adopt a CLL strategy. This “roadmap” is provided in the form of a series of BPMs.   5.1.2 Methodology The methodology for this chapter was to create generic BPMs by integrating key transferable characteristics identified from previous chapters.  5.2 Key Transferable Characteristics from Previous Chapters 5.2.1 Introduction This section provides a number of key transferable characteristics to support the development of the generic models for this chapter. They have been extracted from actual process improvements developed in Chapter 3 and findings from an ethnographic study in Chapter 4. 5.2.2 Key Transferable Characteristics from Chapter 3 The key transferable characteristics extracted from Chapter 3, Section 3.7.4, were based on a general overview of processes being utilized and three case studies from various stages of CLL development; namely the following: 140  • The Centre for Interactive Research in Sustainability (CIRS) – provided a case study for a high performance building, • The Academic District Energy System – provided a case study for infrastructure analysis, • The Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility – provided a case study for a project Characteristics were borrowed from the CIRS example by reviewing past documentation, and by consulting with project participants. The Academic District Energy System information was provided by people directly involved in the project, and the Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility material was obtained from a debrief on the lessons learned by all the project participants.  A list of the key transferable characteristics is as follows: 1. organizational structure for the USI and the CLL, 2. diverse multi-stakeholder committee membership structure, 3. process of categorizing projects based on size (high-level view), 4. process of project evaluation (due diligence) and approval (mid-level view), 5. tools for project evaluation: slide deck and spider chart, 6. selection of a research champion, 7. process for selecting strategic partners, 8. design goals and charettes for high performance buildings, 9. linking funding to sustainable technologies so that they are not value engineered out the equation, 10. contests to solicit ideas for alternative energy or otherwise, 11. linking feasibility studies to contests for the wider community to contribute ideas. 141  5.2.3 Key Transferable Characteristics from Chapter 4 The key transferable characteristics from Chapter 4 were obtained by ethnographic study carried out over 16 months that began on December 6th, 2012. During this period, field notes were written during 36 CLL Working Group meetings attended and quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed. This analysis consisted of developing a CLL Process Framework based on American Productivity and Quality Center’s (APQC) cross industry process classification framework and the Project Management Institute’s (PMI) Project Management Body of Knowledge frameworks and coding the notes taken at the meetings to identify themes. From these themes, a series of recommendations for improvements developed and key transferable characteristics were extracted. This list is provided below: • Develop strategic documents  o Continually optimise strategic documents o Terms of reference o Project selection principals o Metrics for success o Processes to follow  Continual optimization of CLL processes  Integration of new technical guidelines for campus • Administration o Implement a governance model to capture all groups who may potentially work on CLL projects o Ensure adequate human resources are available o Develop a database of researchers ready to work on projects, and projects ready for researchers o Ensure the committee has technologically savvy members o Create a strategic marketing and communications plan 142  o Establish a CLL identity o Have a marketing and communications budget o Identify research potential research champions early o Create relationships with other groups within the campus who are interested in CLL projects • Knowledge transfer o Share general challenges o Share successes and failures o Cultivate relationships with other institutions to share information about new technologies • Be strategic o Review proposals side-by-side to reduce stretching of resources and select most viable options  o Have an inter-disciplinary business case review team on hand o Develop list of technology items ready to be integrated o Develop a presentation schedule for committee learning o Forecast potentially major campus issues and work on a plan early • Integration with campus o Link construction and operating cost into building budget o Incentivise deans to improve operational efficiency of buildings o Monitor energy usage of buildings and ensure equipment installed to monitor energy usage is installed and connected 143  5.2.4 Summary An extensive amount of research was conducted to provide these key transferable characteristics which will be utilized throughout this chapter.  5.3 Campus as a Living Lab Business Process Models 5.3.1 Introduction This section was designed to be a summary of the thesis in the form of BPMs. As there was a learning curve with implementing a living lab at UBC, the goal of this summary was to potentially shorten this learning curve for others and accelerate the adoption of a CLL strategy. As this was designed to be a stand-alone section for distribution, some content already presented has been repeated from earlier sections of this thesis.   This section provides the bare essentials of a roadmap developing and operating a CLL. The items provided are either documents (represented by a “D”) or processes (represented by a “P”). The specific items provided in this chapter are as follows: • Documents o Model Overview (D-1) o Organizational Chart (D-2) o Terms of Reference (D-3) o Slide Deck for Preliminary Project Evaluation (D-4) o Spider Chart for In-depth Project Evaluation (D-5) • CLL Processes o CLL Committee Evolution (P-1.0)  CLL Committee Development Phase (P-1.2) o Infrastructure Analysis (P-1.2.1)  Infrastructure Analysis Contest (P-1.2.1.1) o CLL Project Selection and Development (P-1.2.2) 144   Unsolicited Request Evaluation (P-1.2.2.1) o Initial Review (P-1.2.2.1.1) o Request < $2.5M (P-1.2.2.1.2) o Request > $2.5M (P-1.2.2.1.3)  Solicited Request (P-1.2.2.2) o CLL Improvement (P-1.2.3)  Continuous Improvement of Buildings (P-1.2.3.1) • High Performance Buildings o High Performance Buildings (P-2)  Continuous Improvement of Buildings (P-1.2.3.1) 145  As all the BPMs presented in this Chapter follow the same standard flowchart shapes, a legend applicable for all of the BPMs presented in this Chapter is provided in Figure 5.1. The modelling of all the processes follows a flow chart and swimlane configuration. Some notable differences between this legend and the legend presented in Chapter 3 are the removal of the model version and chapter number. The reason for this is that all models in this chapter are the same chapter, and they were made as generic models to be utilized by others, so the chapter reference has also been removed.   Figure 41: Business process model legend As the legend in Figure 5.1 shows, there are a number of layers to the models. How these models are imbedded is provided in the “Model Overview” in Figure 5.2. This imbedding of models has been significantly extended from the current UBC CLL processes and the items that occur most often also have the most processes imbedded; this is the case for the “CLL Project Selection and Development”. An illustration of how all of these combine together is provided in Figure 5.2. The idea behind the structuring of these models is to provide assistance in developing a CLL structure and operating once the 146  structure is in place. The main activities to support the operation are the “Infrastructure Analysis”, “Project Selection and Development”, and “CLL Improvement”. Another model for “High Performance Buildings” is also included. This is to develop lessons learned from CIRS about how to continually improve buildings on campus. The main reason for this is that operating buildings and the equipment inside of them consume the vast majority of resources; namely, energy and water. This provides an opportunity for optimizing building design for efficiency through continuous improvement. The following sections in this chapter will detail each of these processes and how they interconnect 147   Figure 42: Campus as a Living Lab - model overview148  5.3.2 Campus as a Living Lab Committee Evolution (P-1.0) Based on viewing the development of the CLL Working Group over 16 months, and reviewing the history of the committee before this, the evolution of the committee can be considered to have two distinct phases: a development phase, and an operation phase. During the development phase, the committee structure is developed, as well as a number of key documents.  The operation phase then executes the work while continually optimizing. An illustration is provided in Figure 5.3 with more detail in the following sections.   Figure 43: Campus as a Living Lab committee evolution 5.3.2.1 Campus as a Living Lab Development Phase (P-1.1) The CLL development phase begins with gaining support for the development of the CLL, and then creates the overarching committee structure as well as a number of key documents. This process also captures a number of important attributes as noted in Section 3.7.2 and listed below: • Bottom up and top down support for the program is needed to be truly effective. • Vision, mission, and objectives specific for the CLL need to tie into larger university objectives. 149  • Tools to analyze opportunities for alignment with campus objectives aid with strategic decision making and can shift the project focus from being reactive to proactive. It is important to have bottom-up and top-down support in order to ensure that there are people on the ground ready to act and that there is alignment with university goals and budgets. The key documents created during this process are an organizational chart, terms of reference, a slide deck for preliminary project evaluation, and a spider chart for in-depth project evaluation. This process is shown in Figure 5.4. 150   Figure 44: Campus as a Living Lab committee development phase151  5.3.2.2 Organizational Chart (D-2) The organizational chart in Figure 5.5 was modified from an original version to reflect the integration of the Project Steering Committee and the three committees reporting to it, as well as a connection between Marketing and Communications and the CLL Working Group. This last connection was added from information obtained in the ethnographic study indicating that stronger ties could facilitate knowledge transfer and the sharing of successes and failures with others. The definitions of each of the groups are also provided below. The committee structure described below recognizes the importance of having multi-stakeholder engagement. This was realized after the implementation of the Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility at UBC, during the lessons learned debriefing, when it was realized that members of the community were not adequately consulted in a method where they could provide meaningful input. This led the extension of this idea and inclusion of multi-stakeholders in the various meetings and is noted in Section 5.2.2. • President: The University President. • Campus Sustainability Steering Committee: A group consisting of senior Vice-Presidents, Deans, planning and operations, and a representative from the Student Sustainability Advisory Council. • International Advisory Board on Sustainability: A group of international advisors who provide macroeconomic advice on international initiatives. • Regional Sustainability Council: A local group of sustainability leaders who guide the local direction and regional influence of the Campus Sustainability initiatives. • Student Advisory Council: An elected group of students representing the student societies on campus, sustainability student groups, student housing, and other interested students. Their role is to provide advice to the Campus Sustainability Steering Committee. 152  • Campus as a Living Lab Steering Committee: A group of “representatives from the key stakeholder groups (academic, operational, community)” (Sauder et al. 2013)  • Campus as a Living Lab Working Group: A group of representatives from key project participant groups who are responsible for project evaluation and development. (Sauder et al. 2013)  There should be a high level of project management experience to assist with the planning and execution of the projects.  • Associate Director: The person who is in charge of overseeing day-to-day operations of campus sustainability. • Marketing and Communications: The group who integrates the marketing and communications of the sustainability group with the campuses larger marketing group. • Executive Assistant: Provides assistance to the Associate Director • Administration Coordinator: Provides assistance to the Executive Assistant and the Associate Director. • Strategic Partnerships Office: Responsible for developing partnerships and securing funding for projects.  • Teaching and Learning Office: Responsible for the integration of sustainability curriculum. • Project Steering Committee:  Provides overarching support to the three sub-committees of research, operations, and emissions. It can encompass the leaders in operations, project services, and professors with specific expertise. • Research Committee:  This committee may be led by a full professor and other colleagues knowledgeable in the research area. The primary responsibility is to assist with research development. • Operations Committee: The group has members from project services with heavy engagement from operations. 153  • Emissions Committee: Led by operations with stakeholders from the local neighborhood community.  The organizational chart was developed this way in order to provide additional oversight and support to the CLL committees and to the Campus Sustainability Steering Committee.   Figure 45: Campus as a Living Lab generic organizational chart 5.3.2.3 Terms of Reference (D-3) The terms of reference help to guide the committee in its mission to ensure that it remains on track and aligned with the larger campus objectives. The following terms of reference in Table 5.1 is a draft developed at UBC in February of 2013. These example terms of reference is divided into 8 categories: Foundational Elements, High-Priority Objectives, Principles, Governance, Project Selection Principles, Partner Selection Principles, Sustainability Lens, and Key Success Factors.  154  Table 16: University of British Columbia’s Campus as a Living Lab draft terms of reference (Verbatim) (Sauder et al. 2013) University of British Columbia Campus as a Living Lab Terms of Reference (D-3) Category Item Foundational Elements Integrates core learning and research mission with campus operations  Involves partnerships between UBC and public, private and NGO organizations  Involves sound financial use of UBC infrastructure for demonstration of and research on leading edge solutions (technical and social)  Engages researchers, students, operations staff and external partners  Has potential for knowledge transfer beyond UBC High-Priority Objectives Be a leader in sustainability – meet UBC GHG reduction targets using techniques that can be applied by other organizations  Develop research, innovation, and collaboration opportunities – develop new technologies, techniques and solutions in partnership with others  Reduce our energy consumption – find innovative ways to reduce energy use and maximize energy efficiency  Look for integrated solutions – employ campus-wide perspective, focusing on connections between physical (energy, water, material, food) and social systems  Provide learning opportunities for students and faculty – involve campus community members from a broad range of disciplines in the innovation process Principles Create sustainable solutions: Innovations selected for implementation must be financially self-sufficient and long-term supportable by campus operations  Deploy operable Technology: Implement reliable solutions that support the needs of daily campus life  Align with broader UBC objectives: Focus on UBC Vision and Commitments for guidance   Build with a long-term vision of more than 20 years: Select creative, innovative solutions that will be of value for decades  Be Inclusive and Contributory: Work for mutual benefit with a broad range of UBC community members and outside partners, focusing on support for the BC clean technology industry where appropriate Governance Steering Committee – Responsible for overall direction and decision-making.  Includes representatives from the key stakeholder groups (academic, operational, community).  Working Committee – Responsible for project evaluation and development.  Includes reps from key project participant groups.  Project Management – Individual projects managed by Infrastructure Development Project Services team. 155  University of British Columbia Campus as a Living Lab Terms of Reference (D-3) Category Item Project Selection Principles Evaluate potential projects using multiple tools • Cost benefit analysis & net present value • Life Cycle Assessment (cradle to grave) • Multi-criteria Analysis (for measuring against objectives and principles  Ask the right questions (due diligence) • Do we need it? Enable or hinder future choices? Barriers to overcome? Partner Selection Principles Solicit using multiple channels • Request for proposals, Request for interests, Competitions, Direct  engagement  Structure  • Transparency, Intellectual Property, Mutual benefits, Aligned objectives, Long-term, Competition & Collaboration  Selection • Understand needs, Research and due diligence, Shared values/objectives, Risk versus Reward Sustainability Lens  Consistent, comprehensive sustainability evaluation framework incorporating LCA and LCC in regenerative context  Extends beyond individual buildings or infrastructure systems to integrated neighbourhood/campus scale  When considering the impacts of decision-making, the scope must be broadened to include all environmental and social impacts beyond UBC’s physical boundaries, as well as consider the broader economic impacts, particularly to the BC economy Key Success Factors Strong research, teaching & learning interest  Identified operational needs  Committed/motivated partners  Dedicated project management  Frank and open communications  Access to 3rd party funding (e.g. research grants) 156  5.3.2.4 Slide Deck for Preliminary Project Evaluation (D-4) As time passed in the development of the CLL at UBC, the Strategic Partnerships Office noticed that the business plans being provided by companies wanting to pursue projects often did not provide a value proposition. This led to the CLL Working Group sometimes trying to extract information from the company to try to develop a value proposition for them. This led to an approach more in line with a venture-capital process to investigating potential projects that required a 12 page slide deck with a clear value proposition. This consisted of a template developed by Iain Evans in the Strategic Partnership Office that was generally agreed by the CLL Working Group to be provided to companies that passed the first step of the process. This slide deck became the terms of reference for companies interested in participating in CLL activities. The slide deck also helps guide the company to provide insight into the technology, show how well the company knows your university as a customer, and whether or not the company fundamentally understands what the university is trying to accomplish (Evans 2014). The goal of the following slide deck is to provide a format to easily relay the idea behind the project to multiple stakeholders in order to make an informed decision.   157  Table 17: Slide deck for preliminary project evaluation (Evans 2012) Slide Deck for Preliminary Project Evaluation (D-4) Slide # & Item Contents 1) Introduction slide Project Name, Company Name, Company Location, Company Lead 2) Presentation Outline Slide headings of 3-12 on this list 3) Executive Summary How UBC helps achieve the company’s corporate goals 4) Opportunity Positioning The key problem they are solving and why it is unlike any other product 5) Solution Overview Outlines the value proposition and core technology 6) Solution Example Describes how problems will be overcome 7) Program Plan Provides key resources, tasks and milestones 8) Program Partnerships Partnerships that will develop within BC and beyond 9) Product Cost Assumptions A detailed cost breakdown 10) Innovation Opportunities Researcher involvement opportunities, risks and barriers to commercialization 12) Operations and Maintenance Support Plan How support will be provided to UBC 12) Value-added Opportunities Other potential synergistic opportunities for UBC 5.3.2.5 Spider Chart for In-depth Project Evaluation (D-5) The following spider chart in Table 5.3 was created by Iain Evans of the UBC Strategic Partnerships Office to further the initial analysis by the slide deck, and is meant to be tailored to the individual needs of the campus. Only the sustainability indicators were provided by the author. This Spider Chart provides 5 categories and 24 sub-categories for analysis with the purpose of being able to strategically determine whether or not a potential project is worth exploring further. Each of the sub-categories are rated a point value of “-1”, “0”, or “1” and the higher the score the better. Details on the scoring, and further explanation are provided in Appendix I Spider Chart Criteria.  158  Table 18: Spider chart for in-depth project analysis (Evans 2013) Spider Chart Criteria (D-5) Category Item Operational Efficiency Capital Expenditure (UBC Cash)  Operational Expenditure (NPV over 10 year span based on operations budget.)  Risks (Whether they can be identified and quantified)  Identifiable Environmental Benefit  Guidelines  Leverage Dynamics (For every dollar UBC invests, how much would the company, government, and others contribute.) Research Excellence Publications (How long would it take to publish)  Research Funding  Leverageable Expertise within UBC  Enhanced infrastructure to support leading edge research  Engagement by research chair  Number of departments engaged  Knowledge Dynamics (M&A activity within technology field) Student Learning Undergraduate project work opportunities  Graduate project work opportunities  Recruit and retain top ranked graduate students and postdoctoral fellows  Entrepreneurship at UBC opportunities Community Engagement Cross-campus collaboration  Engagement with the University Neighborhood Association  Engagement with local industry  Engagement with other federal/provincial/municipal/not-for-profit Sustainability Ability to provide be cost competitive with comparable technologies  Ability to improve the surrounding environment  Ability to provide social engagement and improve well being To aid with evaluating all of these criteria, the actual “spider chart” component becomes a key feature. An example of this is provided in the following figure.  159   Figure 46: Visualization from spider chart analysis identifying potential project strengths and weaknesses  160  5.3.2.6 Campus as a Living Lab Operational Phase (P-1.2) Branching from the development phase in Section 5.3.2.1, the operational phase of the CLL begins with an infrastructure analysis, then a continuous cycle of “project selection and development” and “CLL improvement”.  It was noted by a past Associate Director of UBC Project Services and chair of the CLL Working Group (and a person who has been involved with nearly 1,500 projects for a total cost of approximately three quarters of a billion dollars) that this infrastructure analysis is the start of the development of a CLL.  The underlying reason is that it enables a campus to become more strategic with decision making when it comes to project selection. Following the infrastructure analysis phase comes “project selection and development” as the idea behind the CLL is to have a continuous stream of projects available. Next is the “CLL Improvement” phase, which provides a method to refine and improve existing practices. This operational phase was developed with current UBC CLL practices as well as improvements from the ethnographic study conducted and is illustrated in Figure 5.7.    161   Figure 47: Campus as a Living Lab committee operation phase162  5.3.3 Infrastructure Analysis Model (P-1.2.1) The infrastructure analysis is composed of two parts: a request for information combined with a feasibility study, and an infrastructure analysis contest. Both of these are respectively provided in Figure 5.8 and Figure 5.9 and emerged from a process in which UBC conducted a feasibility study for an Academic District Energy System and they have since been generalized so that they could be applied to any institution for any infrastructure analysis. The process can open the door to focus on certain areas, and should be a first step to avoid “getting lost in the desert” (Collins 2014) The process involves a compiling a complex request for proposals which should be considered to be a “project in itself” (Collins 2014). It should be anticipated that providing the level of detail required in an adequate request for proposals of this type will be time consuming.   Once a proponent is selected, the feasibility study is held concurrently to the contest identifying other possible opportunities. The results from the contest can be integrated into the feasibility study as well; as was the case with the Academic District Energy System at UBC.     163   Figure 48: Campus as a Living Lab infrastructure analysis 164    Figure 49: Campus as a Living Lab infrastructure analysis contest165  5.3.4 Project Selection (P-1.2.2) Project selection is divided into two categories: unsolicited requests and solicited requests. Historically at UBC, the unsolicited requests make up the bulk of the projects as they are initiated by either potential industry partners or by someone on campus. The solicited requests occur less frequently, but they tend to develop long relationships with the industry partners selected. Figure 5.10 provides a brief illustration.  In either category, the length of time required to complete a project can be longer than a company anticipates, so clearly expressing the process and a longer time frame at the start is important (Collins 2014).  Figure 50: Campus as a Living Lab project selection and development 5.3.4.1 Campus as a Living Lab Unsolicited Request (P-1.2.2.1) The following process in Figure 5.11 provides a high-level overview of the processes involved with unsolicited requests, as well as the time that it could take to pursue these projects. These estimated time frames were obtained by committee members of the UBC CLL, and provide a rough guide as to project duration. It takes substantially longer to pursue the larger projects as it does the smaller projects. The process is also based off of an existing UBC process with the addition of a time element. The project management process is also slightly more complex than the traditional project management process due to the iterations, budgeting, procurement and delivery, and commissioning being much more involved (Collins 2014). 166   Figure 51: Campus as a Living Lab unsolicited request evaluation for capital projects167  5.3.4.1.1 Campus as a Living Lab Unsolicited Requests Submission & Initial Review (P-1.2.2.1.1) This initial review provides the initial phase of determining if a submission is qualified for a living lab opportunity, qualified for an operations-company or operations-researcher opportunity, or rejected. This initial preliminary determination is carried out by the Strategic Partnerships Office. If the opportunity does appear to qualify for the living lab, then a brief presentation is made at the weekly CLL Working Group meeting before a more thorough analysis is completed. This initial review also allows for a side-by-side review of a number of unsolicited requests before being forwarded to a committee as recommended in Section 5.2.3. This process is outlined in Figure 5.12.    168   Figure 52: Campus as a Living Lab unsolicited requests submission and initial review169  5.3.4.1.1.1 Campus as a Living Lab Unsolicited Requests < $2.5M (P-1.2.2.1.2) The first stage of an unsolicited request requires completing an online form and submitting a two-page proposal. This first step is crucial in ensuring that UBC’s interests align from the beginning of the project and it has been tailored to ensure that information gathered addresses specific questions. From here, the proposal is reviewed by the Strategic Partnerships Office who provides feedback to the CLL Working Group for review.  If the company passes this section, the company then completes the slide deck template discussed in Section 5.3.2.4. This slide deck provides insight into the technology, how well the company knows the university as a customer and whether or not the company fundamentally understands what the university is trying to accomplish. It has been found in the CLL Working Group that the presentation of this format of a slide deck prepared has helped to clearly outline where the potential benefit is to UBC and to industry as a whole. There have been occasions where the technology may be cutting edge, but if a company is not able to produce a benefit to UBC and to industry as a whole, then the project would not be pursued. The slide deck is first reviewed by the Strategic Partnerships Office and then by the CLL Working Group. After this step, a spider chart analysis is completed based on the framework developed by Iain Evans in the Strategic Partnerships Office. This Spider Chart provided 5 categories and 24 sub-categories for analysis with the purpose of being able to strategically determine whether or not a potential project is worth exploring further. Each of the sub-categories are rated a point value of “-1”, “0”, or “1” and the higher the score the better alignment between the technology to be tested and the university sustainability objectives. This is an important step to have, as these reviews are carefully done by a diverse team of individuals who contribute various areas of campus expertise and involves examining the project against the terms of reference. If the working group considers the project to have potential, then the Strategic Partnerships Office will request additional information to further review with the CLL Working Group. If the CLL Working Group agrees that there is a fit, then a champion for the project is identified. (Appointing a champion for a project can prove challenging at times when everyone already is balancing a full-time workload.)  Once a project champion has been appointed, then a presentation is made to the CLL Steering 170  Committee for final vetting before an informal steering committee is created to develop a memorandum of understanding. These projects follow the same rigour as the projects that are greater than $2.5 million in value. The only difference is that the projects do not require institutional project approval. The process is provided in Figure 5.13.    171   Figure 53: Campus as a Living Lab unsolicited project plan submission for capital funds < $2.5M172  5.3.4.1.1.2 Campus as a Living Lab Unsolicited Requests > $2.5M (P-1.2.2.1.3) The process for unsolicited requests greater than $2.5M is the same as the process for requests less than $2.5M in value with the exception that final approval would need to come from the institution. For detail on the steps, refer to Section 5.3.4.1.1.1. The illustration is provided in Figure 5.14.   173   Figure 54: Campus as a Living Lab unsolicited project plan submission for capital funds > $2.5M174  5.3.4.1.2 Solicited Request (P-1.2.2.2) The solicited requests are completed through a request for information (RFI) approach in order to provide an initial vetting of potential partners.  This vetting also flows through the relevant committees to provide a wide range of expertise for the review. It was developed based on UBC CLL processes in place and illustrated the need for a number of checkpoints as mentioned in Section 5.2.2. This process is shown in Figure 5.15.    175   Figure 55: Campus as a Living Lab solicited request for projects176  5.3.5 CLL Improvement The operational phase of the CLL is best described as a cycle that rotates between strategizing and optimizing CLL processes, engaging other groups, developing and refining tools for decision making, evaluating metrics for success, and continually improving the technical guidelines for campus buildings. Explanations of each of these include the following: Strategizing and optimizing CLL processes: This includes evaluating the terms of reference for the CLL and improving reporting procedures.  Engaging other groups: As there are a number of groups on campus where a synergistic relationship could develop, it is valuable to initiate dialogue to investigate potential opportunities for collaboration.  Developing and refining tools for decision making: The slide deck and spider chart mentioned previously are two examples of these.  Evaluating metrics for success: Since the only way of knowing if a CLL program is successful is to provide metrics to measure success, time spent refining these can assist in proving the value of a CLL program.  Continually improving the technical guidelines for campus buildings: The goal of this is to provide a platform to support having every building constructed be better than the building before it. This operational phase was developed with current UBC CLL practices as well as improvements from the ethnographic study conducted (Figure 5.16). 177    Figure 56: Campus as a Living Lab continual improvement178   5.3.5.1 Continually Improve Technical Guidelines for Buildings (P-1.2.3.1) Although this process has not been developed yet, it did warrant having a separate section as it has been something discussed numerous times during the UBC CLL Working Group meetings. The development of a method to continually increase the performance of buildings is an essential element to campus sustainability since buildings also consume the vast amount of energy and water on campuses. The improvements for these guidelines are also meant to go beyond technical aspects of the building, but also reach into processes and tools used throughout the planning, design, construction, commissioning, and operation phases. Additionally, if a campus is to set aggressive GHG reduction targets, a new paradigm of improving buildings would also need to be part of the solution. 5.3.6 High Performance Building Model (P-2) Developing a high performance building can prove to be a challenging task. The process in Figure 5.17 provides an amalgamation of the key points that were used in the development of the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS) as well as key transferable characteristics identified in the ethnographic study. The items integrated from the ethnographic study are the “improve technical guidelines” and the “determine construction and operating costs – fundraise to cover both costs” portions. A key item learned from the original CIRS process was to also link fundraising efforts to specific building components, so that they cannot be value engineered out afterwards. Another important point was to have design goals developed early on in order to develop consensus among the parties involved and to keep the project focus from continually shifting. The idea of integrating a review of technical guidelines after the building is constructed allows potential improvements to be integrated for reasons mentioned in the previous section.   This process is shown in Figure 5.17.  179   Figure 57: Campus as a Living Lab high performance building design 180  5.3.7 Summary  This section developed the foundation of a roadmap to help assist other campuses and municipalities to develop a CLL of their own. This roadmap consisted of replicable processes that were extracted from the lessons learned and the key transferable characteristics from UBC’s CLL program. These key transferable characteristics, combined with the previously existing CLL BPMs, led to the creation of 22 BPMs to support the process of developing and operating a CLL. These included processes to assist in the development of a CLL, infrastructure analysis, project selection and development, CLL improvement, and high performance buildings.  The key transferable characteristics that formed the basis of these BPMs were provided in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 of this thesis. Chapter 3 provided a general overview of the BPMs utilized at UBC, as well as reasons why improvements have been integrated into these models.  Chapter 4 built upon an ethnographic study that was carried out over 16 months, where the author observed and participated in 36 CLL Working Group meetings to learn about the CLL processes being employed and to culture ideas for improvement.  In order to further support the transition into a CLL, five documents were also provided: a process model overview, an organizational chart, a sample terms of reference, a slide deck for preliminary project evaluation, and a spider chart for in-depth project evaluation.  5.4 Recommendations The goal of this chapter was to develop a replicable roadmap to assist with implementing a CLL concept. It was meant provide insight into the practices at UBC and to assist in shortening the learning curve that is involved with developing a CLL. In order to apply these to a new organization, the generalized processes provided would need to be adapted to conform to various organizational structures and to the human and financial resources available.  It is a long process to develop a CLL, as can be noted by the many changes that the author witnessed during a 16-month-long ethnographic study, but the process can be worthwhile as it provides another avenue for collaboration within a university and can assist with reducing the ever-present silos in institutions.  181  Chapter 6. Conclusions The goal of this thesis was to do explore the contributions of the University of British Columbia’s (UBC’s) “Campus as a Living Lab” (CLL) program and to develop replicable processes for other universities and municipalities to expand their sustainable practices in similar ways. Since UBC is the size of a small municipality, it is an assumption of the author that the CLL process could potentially be replicated at similar scale entities. As there are a number of potential benefits associated with a CLL program including GHG reduction, more resilient infrastructure systems, and improved collaborations between industry, operations, and researchers, there is reason to believe that others could be interested in adopting a similar program.  The research on how to replicate a CLL program began in Chapter 2 by discussing barriers to sustainable technology adoption in campus infrastructure systems, the increasing availability of technology, technology development and transfer, knowledge creation and diffusion, qualitative research methods, and business process modelling.   Some of the barriers to sustainable technology adoption in campus infrastructure systems discussed included risks that could hinder projects due to uncertainty associated with performance, schedule, and cost. This section also highlighted how UBC attempts to de-risk projects by leveraging UBC infrastructure investments with matching funds from industry and the government, by reducing potential liability on carbon taxes, and by using projects to contribute to research and teaching. The technology development and transfer section amalgamated technology readiness levels, the technology transfer process, economic clusters, the value chain, the technology adoption curve, and living labs.   The technology readiness levels showed how new technology moves through different stages of maturity and the ways that these stages can be used to assess the timing to introduce a new technology. The technology transfer process highlighted how science-based and development-based regimes differ, and presented the differences between the three stakeholders for university technology transfer. The description of economic clusters provided a description of how local regions could benefit and how a CLL 182  environment would be able to assist with knowledge spillovers, labour pooling and input-output linkages. Additionally, firms within an economic cluster could improve their value chain to increase their competitiveness.  The technology adoption curve illustrated the significant hurdle to overcome when crossing from the early adopters to early majority. University living labs were then introduced to show how they can bridge between the technology readiness levels, the technology transfer process, economic clusters, the value chain, and the technology adoption curve. They achieve this by providing a test bed for developing and demonstrating projects. This also provides an avenue for the financing of a demonstration project that can lead to commercialization of the technology to be adopted by others.  Knowledge creation and diffusion was explained, including the differences between tacit and explicit knowledge, and how knowledge modes and helices were introduced to offer a method of understanding knowledge creation systems. Barriers that prevent new knowledge from being created and diffused were introduced, which included personal barriers (personal accommodation, and threat to self-image), and organizational barriers (the need for a formalized language, organizational precedents, procedures, and company vision). Potential barrier reduction methods and enablers for knowledge transfer were also provided.  An overview of ethnographic research established the methods available for collecting data with a focus on participant observation as the most widely used method. Various formats to take written notes were also provided with field notes being the main form, and descriptive notes being main category used. Methods available to code the field notes were outlined along with the benefit of using thematic networks amongst already developed frameworks to organize themes. Two frameworks were also proposed for use:  the Project Management Body of Knowledge and the cross industry process classification framework.  The current and future use of BPMs for the CLL was reviewed using perspectives, objectives, and characteristics. This aided in determining what attributes a model should possess. Once these were determined, the advantages and disadvantages of the main 183  BPMs and their respective ability to provide each of the four perspectives were reviewed, which resulted in the selection of a modified flow chart.  Chapter 3 introduced the history of the UBC CLL, and how the advancement was accelerated due to a number of strategies and efforts. It also illustrated how the CLL Working Group and Steering Committee is part of a broader University Sustainability Initiative (USI) that encompasses many stakeholders, and that the focus of the CLL Working Group is largely on identifying and pursuing opportunities and the pre-planning phase of a project’s life-cycle. The concentration on this phase places the CLL in the best position to accelerate sustainable technology commercialization by positioning UBC campus to be a test bed. Additionally, CLL projects fall into two main categories: unsolicited and solicited. Due to an influx of unsolicited requests, the CLL needed to adapt to a more proactive, rather than reactive, model of governance. In order to achieve this, assessment tools for varying levels of analysis were developed to evaluate project fit within the UBC campus. These assessment tools were also provided in Chapter 5 for reference in the roadmap developed.  In deciding how to potentially improve on future CLL projects, three case studies were used: CIRS, the Academic District Energy System, and the Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility. These case studies were chosen as they gave a reference case to a building, an analysis of campus-wide infrastructure options, and a CLL project. They also represent energy consumption, transmission, and generation. All of the case studies have had varying degrees of positive impact on UBC campus. CIRS demonstrated how it is helpful to have charettes informing the project early-on to aid with technology decisions, to link funding with specific building components to reduce the potential for them to be value-engineered away, and to have one decision-maker to streamline a project. CIRS also illustrated how a building can be designed to meet four net positive goals (that is, the building creates net benefits to its surroundings in these areas rather than net detriments): “energy, embodied carbon emissions, operational carbon emissions, and water quality” (UBC 2011a). The Academic District Energy System showed how long of a process it can be to evaluate campus energy options and how both third-party consulting and the campus community can collaborate. The Academic District Energy System will 184  potentially reduce GHG emissions by 22 percent while saving “$5.5 million in annual savings including the cost investment for not reinvesting an aging steam system”. (Giffin 2014,  UBC 2011d) This aids with resiliency to campus infrastructure by reducing capital expenditures and reliance on external energy sources. From the Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility emerged the foundation for the current CLL processes; this facility also has the potential to reduce “UBCs GHGs by 5,000 tonnes per year” (UBC 2014b) There are a number of important attributes that emerged in this chapter, including increasing support, aligning goals, improving processes, developing multi-stakeholder involvement, and developing strategic decision-making tools. This chapter also illustrated how researcher collaboration with industry and operations can be increased. Improvements to current CLL practices were also touched upon and key transferable characteristics were provided for use later in Chapter 5.  Chapter 4 introduced a 16-month-long ethnographic study that began on December 6th, 2012 and involved attending a total of 36 CLL Working Group meetings. After taking field notes from these meetings and coding them, a thematic network emerged in the form of a CLL Process Framework. This framework was partly derived from an amalgamation of categories, processes, and sub-processes from the American Productivity and Quality Center’s cross industry process classification framework and the Project Management Institute’s Project Management Body of Knowledge frameworks. A quantitative and qualitative analysis was then completed based on the data obtained. The quantitative analysis showed that the majority of the CLL Working Group’s time is absorbed by developing opportunities, assessing the environment, and developing a vision, strategy, and assessment tools. The qualitative analysis revealed a number of sub-themes, challenges, and partial solutions for further exploration. These results were then categorized into key transferable characteristics and integrated into Chapter 5.  Chapter 5 developed the foundation of a roadmap to help assist other campuses and potentially municipalities in developing a CLL of their own. This roadmap consisted of replicable processes that were extracted from lessons learned and key transferable characteristics from UBC’s CLL program. These key transferable characteristics 185  combined with already existing CLL BPMs to provide 22 BPMs to support the process of developing and operating a CLL. These included processes to assist in the development of a CLL, infrastructure analysis, project selection and development, CLL improvement, and high performance buildings. The key transferable characteristics that formed the basis of these BPMs were provided from Chapter 3 and Chapter 4. In order to further support the transition into a CLL, five documents were also provided: a process model overview, an organizational chart, a sample terms of reference, a slide deck for preliminary project evaluation, and a spider chart for in-depth project evaluation The goal of this thesis was to develop a replicable roadmap to assist with implementing a CLL concept. It was meant provide insight into the practices at UBC and to assist in shortening the learning curve that is involved with developing a CLL. In order to apply these to a new organization, the generalized processes provided would need to be adapted to conform to various organizational structures and to the human and financial resources available.  It is a long process to develop a CLL, as can be noted by the many changes that the author witnessed during a 16 month long ethnographic study, but the process can be worthwhile as it provides another avenue for collaboration within a university and can assist with reducing the ever-present silos in institutions       186  Bibliography APQC, 2012. History - APQC. Available at: http://www.apqc.org/history [Accessed March 17, 2014]. APQC, 2013. Process Classification Framework - APQC. Available at: http://www.apqc.org/process-classification-framework [Accessed March 17, 2014]. Attride-Stirling, J., 2001. Thematic Networks: An Analytic Tool for Qualitative Research. Qualitative Research, 1(3), pp.385–405. Available at: http://qrj.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/146879410100100307 [Accessed March 24, 2014]. AUCC, 2012. Association of Universities and Colleges Canada. Available at: http://www.aucc.ca/about-us/ [Accessed July 20, 2012]. Bates, W., 2008. City of Brandon Greenhouse Gas Inventory City. , pp.1–6. Bernard, H.R., 2006a. Field Notes: How to Take Them, Code Them, Manage Them. In Research Methodology in Anthropology. pp. 387–412. Bernard, H.R., 2006b. Participant Observation. In Research Methodology in Anthropology. pp. 342–386. Blank, S., 2014. Is This Startup Ready For Investment? Available at: http://steveblank.com/2014/02/25/is-this-startup-ready-for-investment/ [Accessed March 15, 2014]. Bliss, D.J., 2007. Stormwater Runoff Mitigation and Water Quality Improvements Through the Use of a Green Roof in Pittsburgh, PA. Bohlen, J.M. & Beal, G.M., 1957. The Diffusion Process, Busby Perkins + Will, 2008a. CIRS Goals Summary. , p.3. Busby Perkins + Will, 2009. CIRS IFC Set. Busby Perkins + Will, 2008b. CIRS Meeting Minutes. , p.3. Calgary, C. of, 2006. Calgary Climate Change Action Plan, Calgary, U. of, 2009. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report Fiscal Year 2008-2009, 187  Canada, I., 2009. Town of Markham Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Local Action Plan for Emission Reductions. , (647), p.76. Canada, S., 2002. Population and Dwelling Counts, for Canada and Census Subdivisions (Municipalities) with 5,000-plus Population, 2001 and 1996 Censuses - 100% Data. Available at: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/english/census01/products/standard/popdwell/Table-CSD-N5.cfm?S=20 [Accessed December 17, 2013]. Canada, S., 2011. Population and Dwelling Counts, for Canada and Census Subdivisions (municipalities) with 5,000-plus Population, 2011 and 2006 Censuses. Available at: http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/hlt-fst/pd-pl/Table-Tableau.cfm?LANG=Eng&T=307&SR=1&S=11&O=A [Accessed July 20, 2012]. Canada, S., 2012. Population and Dwelling Counts, for Canada and Census Subdivisions (municipalities) with 5,000-plus Population, 2011 and 2006 Censuses. Available at: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/hlt-fst/pd-pl/Table-Tableau.cfm?LANG=Eng&T=307&S=11&O=A&RPP=100 [Accessed December 17, 2013]. Canada, S., 2013. Population by Year, by Province and Territory (Number). Available at: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/demo02a-eng.htm [Accessed December 17, 2013]. Carayannis, E.G. & Campbell, D.F.J., 2011. Open Innovation Diplomacy and a 21st Century Fractal Research, Education and Innovation (FREIE) Ecosystem: Building on the Quadruple and Quintuple Helix Innovation Concepts and the “Mode 3” Knowledge Production System. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 2(3), pp.327–372. Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13132-011-0058-3 [Accessed March 22, 2014]. CAUT, 2010. 2009/2010 CAUT Almanac of Post-Secondary Education, Available at: http://www.caut.ca/docs/almanac/2009_caut_almanac_en.pdf?sfvrsn=2 [Accessed April 14, 2014]. CAUT, 2011. 2010/2011 CAUT Almanac of Post-Secondary Education, Available at: http://www.caut.ca/docs/almanac/2010_caut_almanac_en.pdf?sfvrsn=2 [Accessed April 14, 2014]. CAUT, 2012. 2011/2012 CAUT Almanac of Post-Secondary Education, Available at: http://www.caut.ca/docs/default-source/almanac/almanac-2011-2012.pdf?sfvrsn=0 [Accessed April 14, 2014]. CAUT, 2013. 2012/2013 CAUT Almanac of Post-Secondary Education, Available at: http://www.caut.ca/docs/almanac/2012-2013-caut-almanac-of-post-secondary-education-in-canada.pdf?sfvrsn=0 [Accessed April 14, 2014]. 188  CAUT, 2014. 2013/2014 CAUT Almanac of Post-Secondary Education in Canada, Available at: http://www.caut.ca/docs/default-source/almanac/almanac_2013-2014_print_finalE20A5E5CA0EA6529968D1CAF.pdf?sfvrsn=2 [Accessed March 15, 2014]. CH2MHILL, 2006. City of Barrie GHG Inventory and Community Energy Plan. , p.277. CH2MHILL, 2008. City of Stratford GHG Inventory and Community Energy Plan. , (October), p.147. Chen, P., 2010. Founding Story. Available at: https://www.kickstarter.com/press?ref=help_nav [Accessed April 14, 2014]. City of Spruce Grove, 2004. Energy Management Plan and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategy. , p.48. City of Vancouver, 2012. City of Vancouver Greenest City 2020 Action Plan. , p.82. Available at: http://vancouver.ca/greenestcity/PDF/GC2020ActionPlan.pdf [Accessed July 20, 2012]. CMU, A “Living” and “Lived-In” Lab. Carnegie Mellon University Website. Available at: http://www.cmu.edu/homepage/innovation/2007/spring/intelligent-workplace.shtml [Accessed March 26, 2014]. Collins, A., 2014. Correspondence with Andrew Collins. Consulting, D., 2006. Halifax Regional Municipality Community Local Action Plan to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. , p.68. Curtis, B., Kellner, M.I. & Over, J., 1992. Process Modeling. Communications of the ACM, 35(9), pp.75–90. Delgado, M., Porter, M.E. & Stern, S., 2010. Clusters and entrepreneurship. Journal of Economic Geography, 10(4), pp.495–518. Available at: http://joeg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1093/jeg/lbq010 [Accessed March 11, 2014]. Delgado, M., Porter, M.E. & Stern, S., 2011. Clusters, Convergence, and Economic Performance, District of Saanich, 2010. District of Saanich Climate Climate Action Action Plan Plan. , p.42. Dodson, J., 2009. The “Infrastructure Turn” in Australian Metropolitan Spatial Planning. International Planning Studies, 14(2), pp.109–123. Available at: 189  http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13563470903021100 [Accessed March 26, 2014]. Emerson, R.M., 1995. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Engeström, Y., 2001. Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an Activity Theoretical Reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), pp.133–156. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13639080020028747 [Accessed March 20, 2014]. Engineers, K.W.L.C., 2014. University of British Columbia Academic Distric Energy System (ADES) Steam to Hot Water Conversion Project. , p.1. Evans, I., 2014. Conversation with Iain Evans. Evans, I., 2012. Slide Deck for Preliminary Project Evaluation at UBC. , p.12. Evans, I., 2013. Spider Chart of In-depth Project Evaluation at UBC. Fedoruk, L. & Save, P., 2012. The Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability Retrospective, Fedoruk, L., Save, P. & UBC, 2012. Building History | Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability, Available at: http://cirs.ubc.ca/building/building-history [Accessed April 2, 2014]. Froese, T. & Rankin, J.H., 2009. Strategic Roadmaps for Construction Innovation: Assessing the State of Research. Journal of Information Technology in Construction, 14(August), pp.400–411. Fund, T.A., 2013. Toronto Beats Kyoto Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target. Toronto Atmospheric Fund. Available at: http://www1.toronto.ca/staticfiles/city_of_toronto/toronto_atmospheric_fund/files/pdf/mr-050613.pdf [Accessed March 15, 2014]. Gell, K., 2006. A 2004 McGill Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Gerard, L., 2011. Town of Caledon Community-Wide Local Action Plan to Reduce GHGs Emissions Partners for Climate Protection Program. , p.75. Giaglis, G.M., 2001. A Taxonomy of Business Process Modeling and Information Systems Modeling Techniques. International Journal. Gibbons, M. et al., 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, 190  Giffin, J., 2014. Conversation With Jeffrey Giffin. Gilsing, V. et al., 2011. Differences in Technology Transfer Between Science-based and Development-based Industries: Transfer Mechanisms and Barriers. Technovation, 31(12), pp.638–647. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0166497211000927 [Accessed February 25, 2014]. Gold, R.L., 1958. Roles in Sociological Field Observations. Social Forces, 36(3), pp.217–223. Greener, S., 2008. Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting and Analyzing Qualitative Data. In Business Research Methods. pp. 79–85. Group, T.S., 2009. City of Saskatoon Energy & Greenhouse Gas Management Plan. , (June), p.86. Harvey, L.J. & Myers, M.D., 1995. Scholarship and Practice: the Contribution of Ethnographic Research Methods to Bridging the Gap. Information Technology & People, 8(3), pp.13–27. HYLA Environmental Services Ltd., 2011. City of Pitt Meadows Community Energy & Greenhouse Gas Emissions Plan. , p.96. Kemp, R., 1994. Technology and the Transition to Environmental Sustainability: The Problem Shifts of Technological Regime. Futures, 26(10), pp.1023–1046. Kettinger, W.J., Teng, J.T.C. & Guha, S., 1997. Business Process Change : A Study of Methodologies , Techniques , and Tools. Management Information Systems, 21(1), pp.55–80. Kickstarter, 2014. Kickstarter Stats. Available at: https://www.kickstarter.com/help/stats [Accessed April 14, 2014]. Kidd, C.D. et al., 1999. The Aware Home: A Living Laboratory for Ubiquitous Computing Research. In Cooperative Buildings: Integrating Information, Organizations and Architecture. pp. 191–198. Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K. & Nonoka, I., 2000. Enabling Knowledge Creation: How to Unlock the Mystery of Tacit Knowledge and Release the Power of Innovation, LeCompte, M.D. & Goetz, J.P., 1982a. Ethnographic Data Collection in Evaluation Research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 4(3), pp.387–400. LeCompte, M.D. & Goetz, J.P., 1982b. Problems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic Research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), pp.31–60. 191  Lemke, M., 2009. Theme 8: Open Innovation, User Experience and Living Labs. CIP ICT Policy Support Programme WP. Li, L. et al., 2010. Energy Demand and Carbon Emissions under Different Development Scenarios for Shanghai, China. Energy Policy, 38(9), pp.4797–4807. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0301421509006375 [Accessed March 26, 2014]. Lin, E., 2012. CIRS Occupancy Permit. , p.1. London, C. of, 2013. City of London 2012 Community Energy & Greenhouse Gas Inventory: Challenges & Opportunities. , (October), p.32. Luo, W. & Tung, Y.A., 1999. A Framework for Selecting Business Process Modeling Methods. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 99(7), pp.312–319. Mankins, J.C., 2009. Technology Readiness Assessments: A Retrospective. Acta Astronautica, 65(9-10), pp.1216–1223. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0094576509002008 [Accessed November 19, 2013]. Mankins, J.C., 1995. Technology Readiness Levels, Montreal, C. of, 2013. Plan de Réduction des Émissions de Gaz à Effet de Serre de la Collectivé Montréalaise 2013 – 2020. Moore, G.A., 1991. Crossing The Chasm, Harper Business Essentials. Moore, J. et al., 2005. Recreating the University from within: Collaborative Reflections on the University of British Columbia’s Engagement with Sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 6(1), pp.65–80. Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/14676370510573140 [Accessed December 5, 2013]. Mowery, D.C. & Oxley, J.E., 1995. Inward Technology Transfer and Competitiveness : The Role of National Innovation Systems. , pp.67–93. Neuhäusler, P., Frietsch, R. & Isi, F., 2013. Patents as indicators for knowledge generation and diffusion in mechanical engineering and green biotechnology - A first assessment, Nonaka, I., 1991. The Knowledge Creating Comany. Harvard Business Review, November-D. Oakville, 2004. Oakville Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory. , p.16. 192  Ottawa, C. of, 2004. Ottawa Air Quality and Climate Change Management Plan. , p.107. Ouillet, P., 2012. Regenerative Neighbourhoods Summit Speech. , p.2. Available at: http://www.vpfinance.ubc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/pierre_speech_regenerative_neighbourhoods_feb2013.pdf [Accessed January 14, 2014]. Parente, S.L. & Prescott, E.C., 1994. Barriers to Technology Adoption and Development. Journal of Political Economy, 102(2), pp.298–321. Parkin, J., 2004. City of Burlington Partners for Climate Protection Program Milestone 1 : Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. , p.18. Pelto, P.J. & Pelto, G.H., 1978. Tools of Research - I. In Anthropological Research: The Structure of Inquiry. pp. 67–81. Pembina, 2009. Canada’s Collest Cities Vancouver & CMA. , p.6. Pembina, 2012. Edmonton’s Energy Transition, Pidd, M., 2000. A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Business Processes and Business Process Modelling. Information Systems Journal, (10), pp.105–129. PMI, 2013. About Us. Available at: http://www.pmi.org/About-Us.aspx [Accessed March 17, 2014]. PMI, 2008. Project Mangement Body of Knowledge - Fourth Edition, Porter, M., 2003. The Economic Performance of Regions. Regional Studies, 37(6-7), pp.545–546. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0034340032000108688 [Accessed February 22, 2014]. Porter, M.E., 1998. Clusters and the New Economics of Competition. Harvard Business Review, (December). Porter, M.E., 2008. Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, Porter, M.E. & Kramer, M.R., 2006. Strategy & Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corperate Social Responsibility. Harvard Business Review, (December), p.15. Queen’s, U., 2012. Campus Greenhouse Gas Emissions Drop Slightly. Available at: http://www.queensu.ca/news/articles/campus-greenhouse-gas-emissions-drop-slightly [Accessed April 15, 2014]. 193  Rahman, S. & Vanier, D.J., 2004. Life Cycle Cost Analysis as a Decision Support Tool for Managing Municipal Infrastructure, River, C. of P., 2014. Powell River City 2010 Community Energy and Emissions Inventory. , p.7. Robinson, J. et al., 2010. USI Steering Committee Meeting # 2 – April 15 , 2010 Progress Report ( Mar 9-Apr 15 ). Rogers, E.M., Takegami, S. & Yin, J., 2001. Lessons learned about technology transfer. Technovation, 21(4), pp.253–261. Saskatchewan, U. of, 2011. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report, Sauder, B. et al., 2013. UBC Campus as a Living Lab Terms of Reference. , p.14. Sauder, B. & Evans, I., 2011. SES - Living Lab Strategic Partner RFI Presentation. , p.9. Schensul, S.L., Schensul, J.J. & LeCompte, M.D., 1999. Essential Ethnographic Methods, Schmidt, D., 2007. Town of Stony Plain Partners for Climate Protection Milestone 1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Forecast. , (November), p.28. Schwartz, M.S. & Schwartz, C.G., 1995. Problems in Participant Observation. American Journal of Sociology, 60(4), pp.343–353. Siegel, D.S., Waldman, D. & Link, A., 2003. Assessing the Impact of Organizational Practices on the Relative Productivity of University Technology Transfer Offices : An Exploratory Study. , 32, pp.27–48. Simonin, B.L., 1999. Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 20(7), pp.595–623. South, T. of C.B., 2012. The Town of Conception Bay South Climate Change Mitigation Plan. , p.57. Ståhlbröst, A., 2008. Forming Future IT - The Living Lab Way of User Involvement. Stantec, 2009. City of Hamilton: Air Pollutant and GHG Inventory Project, Stantec, 2011. City of Penticton Community Climate Action Plan. , p.52. Stantec, 2010a. City of St. Albert Greenhouse Gas Inventory Forecast and Targets Project. , p.44. 194  Stantec, 2010b. Town of Riverview: Final Report - Climate Change and Energy Conservation, Surrey, C. of, 2013. Community Energy & Emissions Plan. , p.52. Sustainability, D.O. of, 2011. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory Report 2010 - 2011, Terrace, C. of, 2014. Terrace City 2010 Community Energy and Emissions Inventory. , pp.1–8. Toronto, U. of & Honeywell, 2009. University of Toronto , St . George Campus Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Report, Torrie, R., 2007. The Cities for Climate Change Protection Local Action Plan for C02 Reductions Bathurst, New Brunswick. , (October), p.6. Transportation, C. for S. & Winnipeg, U. of, 2007. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Baseline for the City of Winnipeg, UBC, 2014a. Academic District Energy System – Steam to Hot Water Conversion Project. Available at: http://sustain.ubc.ca/campus-initiatives/climate-energy/academic-district-energy-system-–-steam-hot-water-conversion [Accessed April 1, 2014]. UBC, 2014b. Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility. Available at: http://sustain.ubc.ca/research/signature-research-projects/bioenergy-research-and-demonstration-facility [Accessed April 3, 2014]. UBC, 2006a. Board of Governors Meeting. , p.31. UBC, Building Overview | Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability. Available at: http://cirs.ubc.ca/building/building-overview [Accessed April 2, 2014]. UBC, 2014c. Campus and Community Planning. Available at: http://planning.ubc.ca/ [Accessed February 5, 2014]. UBC, 2013a. Campus as a Living Laboratory. Available at: http://sustain.ubc.ca/our-commitment/campus-living-lab [Accessed March 6, 2014]. UBC, 2013b. Campus as a Living Laboratory. Available at: http://www.sustain.ubc.ca/our-commitment/campus-living-lab [Accessed January 17, 2013]. UBC, 2011a. CIRS Building Manual. In Executive Summary. pp. 1–12. UBC, 2005a. CIRS Canadian Foundation for Innovation Proposal. , p.30. 195  UBC, 2008. ECOTrek. Available at: http://sustain.ubc.ca/campus-initiatives/climate-energy/ecotrek [Accessed August 15, 2012]. UBC, 2011b. James Sauners and Malcolm Shields Win the Alternative Energy X Competition. , p.1. Available at: http://mech.ubc.ca/2009/09/11/james-saunders-and-malcolm-shields-win-the-alternative-energy-x-competition/ [Accessed April 1, 2014]. UBC, 2005b. MOU between UBC and BC Hydro. , p.3. UBC, 2011c. Nexterra Debrief Summary. , p.4. UBC, 2012a. Place and Promise: The UBC Plan. , p.31. Available at: http://strategicplan.ubc.ca/the-plan/sustainability/ [Accessed November 2, 2014]. UBC, 2012b. Project Background & Overview | Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability. Available at: http://cirs.ubc.ca/building/building-manual/project-background-overview [Accessed September 8, 2013]. UBC, 2007. Sustainable Development Canada Contribution Agreement. , p.58. UBC, 2004a. Sustainable Development Technology Canada Funding Application. , p.39. UBC, 2006b. The Sustainability Strategy, Vancouver and Okanagan Campuses 2006-2010, Available at: http://www.sustain.ubc.ca/sites/sustain.ubc.ca/files/uploads/UBC_Sustainability_Strategy_2006-2010.pdf [Accessed July 3, 2012]. UBC, 2005c. UBC Board of Governors Meeting. , p.25. UBC, 2004b. UBC Board of Governors Minutes 2004-09-30. Available at: http://bog.ubc.ca/files/2010/10/MIN-BG-2004.09.pdf [Accessed September 9, 2013]. UBC, 2005d. UBC Board of Governors Minutes 2005-06-03. Available at: http://bog.ubc.ca/files/2010/10/MIN-BG-2005.06.03.pdf [Accessed September 9, 2013]. UBC, 2011d. UBC Board of Governors Minutes Steam to Hot Water Conversion 2011-06-08. , p.14. UBC, 2009a. UBC Board of Governors Request for Decision. , pp.1–9. UBC, 2014d. UBC Building Operations. Available at: http://www.buildingoperations.ubc.ca/about-us/ [Accessed March 3, 2014]. 196  UBC, 2010a. UBC Climate Action Plan Case Study. Available at: http://sustain.ubc.ca/sites/sustain.ubc.ca/files/uploads/CampusSustainability/CS_PDFs/CaseStudies/UBCClimateActionPlan_CaseStudy.pdf [Accessed November 8, 2012]. UBC, 2012c. UBC Energy Conversion Saves $4 Million a Year, Cuts GHGs. Available at: http://www.sustain.ubc.ca/steam-hot-water/ubc-energy-conversion-saves-4-million-year-cuts-ghgs [Accessed July 20, 2012]. UBC, 2013c. UBC first Canadian university to produce clean heat and electricity from biofuel. Available at: http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/2012/09/13/ubc-first-canadian-university-to-produce-clean-heat-and-electricity-from-biofuel/ [Accessed January 13, 2013]. UBC, 2013d. UBC Partnerships. Available at: http://sustain.ubc.ca/partnerships [Accessed January 27, 2014]. UBC, 2014e. UBC Project Services. Available at: http://www.projectservices.ubc.ca/about/ [Accessed March 3, 2014]. UBC, 2010b. UBC sets aggressive new targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions « UBC Public Affairs. Available at: http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/2010/03/24/ubc-sets-aggressive-new-targets-to-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions/ [Accessed August 15, 2012]. UBC, 2009b. UBC Sustainability Academic Strategy. UBC, p.30. Available at: http://www.sustain.ubc.ca/sites/sustain.ubc.ca/files/uploads/pdfs/Plans and Reports/SAS-Final-Report-Oct-17-2009.pdf [Accessed July 20, 2012]. UBC, 2012d. UBC Sustainability Story. Available at: http://sustain.ubc.ca/our-commitment/our-story [Accessed February 1, 2014]. UBC, 2011e. UBC Vancouver Campus — 2011 GHG Emissions Inventory. , p.3. UBC, 2010c. UBC Vancouver Climate Action Plan. , p.110. Available at: http://www.sustain.ubc.ca/sites/sustain.ubc.ca/files/uploads/pdfs/Plans and Reports/UBC Vancouver CAP Final.pdf [Accessed July 20, 2012]. UBC, 2014f. UBC Welcomes our 13th President and Vice Chancellor. Available at: http://www.ubc.ca/newpresident/ [Accessed March 23, 2014]. UBC, 2012e. UBC, Fraunhofer formalize partnership among world’s top clean energy researchers « UBC Public Affairs. Available at: http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/2012/03/08/ubc-fraunhofer-formalize-partnership-among-worlds-top-clean-energy-researchers/ [Accessed August 15, 2012]. 197  UBC, 2013e. U-Pass. Available at: http://planning.ubc.ca/vancouver/transportation-planning/u-pass-compass-card/u-pass-faq [Accessed April 1, 2014]. ULSF, 2012. Brief history of the Talloires declaration. Available at: http://www.ulsf.org/programs_talloires_history.html [Accessed March 1, 2014]. United Nations, 2011a. Canada’s withdrawl from Kyoto Protocol regrettable - UN climate official. Available at: http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/climatechange/pages/gateway/template/news_item.jsp?cid=31525 [Accessed July 20, 2012]. United Nations, 2011b. GHG Total with LULUCF. Available at: http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/ghg_data_unfccc/time_series_annex_i/items/3842.php [Accessed April 1, 2014]. United Nations, 1998. Kyoto Protocol (application/pdf Object), Available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf [Accessed July 3, 2012]. United Nations, 2013. National Inventory Submissions 2013. Available at: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_inventories_submissions/items/7383.php [Accessed April 1, 2014]. United Nations, 1997. The Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Third Session, Held at Kyoto from 1 to 11 December 1997, United Nations, 2011c. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. , p.26. Available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/sbi/eng/09.pdf [Accessed July 20, 2012]. USA, 2013. U.S. Patent Statistics Summary Table, Calendar Years 1963 to 2012. US Patent and Trademark Office Website. Available at: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat.htm [Accessed February 1, 2014]. Vancouver, C. of, 2013. Green buildings. Available at: http://vancouver.ca/green-vancouver/green-buildings.aspx [Accessed April 4, 2014]. Vaughan, C. of, 2013. City of Vaughan Greenhouse Gas Emission Community Action Plan Steering Committee #3 Presentation. British journal of community nursing, Suppl, p.17. Venkatesh, V. & Davis, F.D., 2000. Theoretical Acceptance Extension Model : Field Four Studies of the Technology Longitudinal. INFORMS, 46(2), pp.186–204. Victoria, U. of, 2010. Carbon Neutral UVic, 198  Western, U., 2014. GHG Inventory. Available at: http://sustainability.uwo.ca/initiatives/energy_climate/ghg_inventory.html [Accessed April 15, 2014]. Whittaker, R., 2013. SDTC and Aerospace. , p.27. Wolfinger, N.H., 2002. On writing fieldnotes: collection strategies and background expectancies. Qualitative Research, 2(1), pp.85–95. WorldBank, 2012. World Population by Country. Available at: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL [Accessed December 12, 2013]. Zaharlick, A. & Green, J.L., 1991. Ethnographic Research. In Handbook of Research on teaching the English Language Arts, Zeldich, M.J., 1962. Some Methodological Problems of Field Studies. American Journal of Sociology, 67(5), pp.566–576. Zerofootprint, 2009. McMaster University 2007 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory,   199  Appendices Appendix A  Kyoto Protocol GHG Emission Reduction Calculation  This appendix provides a methodology and steps to support the following sentence in Section 1.1: “In 1997, 38 countries signed the Kyoto Protocol which bound them to reduce their GHG emissions to an average of 4.95 percent below 1990 emissions levels for the period of 2008 through 2012 (United Nations 1998), United Nations 2011b).” The reason why the first 38 countries were used for the reference was two-fold: 1) to find out how well the initially pro-active countries for signing the Kyoto Protocol accomplished their goals, and 2) to utilize sources where their information is readily available.  In order to obtain the 4.95 percent, the following methodology and steps were used. Methodology 1. Obtain list of countries who were the first signatories in 1997 2. verify how emissions are to be calculated under the Kyoto Protocol, 3. verify these countries emissions in 1990, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, 4. calculate each country’s percentage difference in emissions between 2011 and 1990, 5. calculate the total weighted average of the 38 countries’ agreed upon emission reduction, Steps 1. The list of countries who were the first signatories was obtained from “The Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Third Session, Held at Kyoto from 1 to 11 200  December 1997” (United Nations 1997). This report contained 37 countries who initially signed onto the Kyoto Protocol. 2. The emission calculations are detailed in Article 3, item (3) of the Kyoto Protocol which states “The net changes in greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks resulting from direct human-induced land-use change and forestry activities, limited to afforestation, reforestation and deforestation since 1990, measured as verifiable changes in carbon stocks in each commitment period, shall be used to meet the commitments under this Article of each Party included in Annex I” (United Nations 1998).  3. The emissions for 1990, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 were obtained from the GHG total including Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry on the United Nations website. These figures are included in the following Table 6.1. 4. Each country’s percentage difference in emissions between 2011 and 1990 is provided in Table 6.1 under the column “2011 Actual Change”. 5. The total weighted average of the 38 countries’ agreed upon emission reduction was calculated from the totals for “2011 Emissions Target (tonnes of GHG equivalent) (G)” and the “1990 (A) Actual Emissions (tonnes GHG equivalent)” in Table 6.1. These respective values are below: 2011 Emissions Target (tonnes of GHG equivalent) = 16,723,066 1990 Actual Emissions (tonnes GHG equivalent) = 17,593,829 Let Z = total weighted average of the 38 countries’ agreed upon emission reduction 𝑍 =16,723,066− 17,595,82917,593,829∗ 100 = 4.949 201  Table 19: First 38 signatories for Kyoto Protocol actual emissions for 1990, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, as well as percentage of change between 2011 and 1990 (United Nations 2011b) First 38 signatories for Kyoto Protocol actual emissions for 1990, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, as well as percentage of change between 2011 and 1990   Actual Emissions (tonnes GHG equivalent)** 2011 Emissions Target (tonnes of GHG equivalent) (G) = (A * B) 2011 Actual Change (H) = (G – B) / (B) Met Target Country Reduction Commitment 1990 (A) 2008 (C) 2009 (D) 2010 (E) 2011 (F) Australia 108.00% 524,049 520,593 589,413 587,811 511,951 565,973 97.69% Yes Austria 92.00% 68,232 87,446 76,418 81,497 79,353 62,773 114.01% No Belgium 92.00% 142,307 135,561 123,286 130,563 119,040 130,922 83.65% Yes Bulgaria* 92.00% 107,596 58,662 49,417 52,243 58,154 98,989 54.05% Yes Canada 94.00% 529,451 719,854 679,188 804,044 789,058 497,684 132.90% No Croatia* 95.00% 25,282 23,550 21,277 20,909 21,390 24,018 84.60% Yes Czech Republic* 92.00% 192,571 137,503 127,136 132,257 126,387 177,166 65.63% Yes Denmark 92.00% 75,561 63,939 65,185 62,306 55,084 69,516 72.90% Yes Estonia* 92.00% 31,693 11,492 8,919 14,047 16,693 29,158 52.67% Yes Finland 92.00% 55,290 40,590 26,791 49,928 42,456 50,867 76.79% Yes France 92.00% 537,671 490,094 475,743 486,828 448,517 494,657 83.42% Yes Germany 92.00% 1,214,506 982,752 919,818 952,239 925,830 1,117,345 76.23% Yes Greece 92.00% 102,090 127,465 121,020 114,678 112,505 93,923 109.26% No Hungary* 94.00% 113,774 68,776 63,432 63,921 62,492 106,947 54.93% Yes Iceland 110.00% 4,727 5,900 5,633 5,461 5,206 5,200 109.21% Yes 202  First 38 signatories for Kyoto Protocol actual emissions for 1990, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, as well as percentage of change between 2011 and 1990   Actual Emissions (tonnes GHG equivalent)** 2011 Emissions Target (tonnes of GHG equivalent) (G) = (A * B) 2011 Actual Change (H) = (G – B) / (B) Met Target Country Reduction Commitment 1990 (A) 2008 (C) 2009 (D) 2010 (E) 2011 (F) Ireland 92.00% 52,585 64,902 58,823 57,382 53,813 48,378 102.28% No Italy 92.00% 506,830 504,507 450,860 456,973 458,202 466,284 90.41% Yes Japan 94.00% 1,197,614 1,204,280 1,133,169 1,181,974 1,232,650 1,125,757 102.84% No Latvia* 92.00% 4,006 -8,030 -8,924 -4,314 -5,634 3,686 -140.62% Yes Liechtenstein 92.00% 221 257 241 227 215 203 97.35% No Lithuania* 92.00% 44,467 16,484 9,793 10,725 11,131 40,910 25.03% Yes Luxembourg 92.00% 13,249 11,915 11,394 11,957 11,804 12,189 89.09% Yes Monaco 92.00% 108 100 95 92 90 100 82.61% Yes Netherlands 92.00% 214,849 206,339 200,708 212,169 197,645 197,661 91.99% Yes New Zealand 100.00% 31,634 50,570 49,690 54,126 59,383 31,634 146.73% No Norway 101.00% 35,105 29,940 29,642 30,756 25,873 35,456 73.70% Yes Poland* 94.00% 558,075 382,897 362,589 383,862 384,948 524,591 68.98% Yes Portugal 92.00% 69,449 72,221 68,989 67,897 64,667 63,893 93.11% No Romania* 92.00% 251,813 116,165 92,056 90,809 98,054 231,668 38.94% Yes Russian Federation* 100.00% 3,436,472 1,658,976 1,474,868 1,566,674 1,692,416 3,436,472 49.25% Yes Slovakia* 92.00% 61,763 41,895 36,519 38,981 37,830 56,822 61.25% Yes Slovenia* 92.00% 11,011 11,703 9,754 9,830 9,891 10,130 89.83% Yes 203  First 38 signatories for Kyoto Protocol actual emissions for 1990, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, as well as percentage of change between 2011 and 1990   Actual Emissions (tonnes GHG equivalent)** 2011 Emissions Target (tonnes of GHG equivalent) (G) = (A * B) 2011 Actual Change (H) = (G – B) / (B) Met Target Country Reduction Commitment 1990 (A) 2008 (C) 2009 (D) 2010 (E) 2011 (F) Spain 92.00% 263,683 369,789 334,205 319,746 321,412 242,588 117.96% No Sweden 92.00% 35,566 30,580 26,584 34,851 26,216 32,721 73.71% Yes Switzerland 92.00% 49,894 52,225 50,412 51,850 46,752 45,902 93.70% No Ukraine* 100.00% 860,156 410,844 347,039 345,256 394,287 860,156 45.84% Yes United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland  92.00% 781,732 644,182 589,602 605,234 564,081 719,194 72.16% Yes United States of America  93.00% 5,388,746 6,146,159 5,704,017 5,921,548 5,797,284 5,011,533 107.05% No  TOTALS 17,593,829 15,493,077 14,384,802 15,007,339 14,857,124 16,723,066   Note: *Undergoing a transition to a market economy in 1998, **GHG total including Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry   204  Appendix B  Average Greenhouse Gas Emission for Canadian Municipalities with Populations over 10,000 people The goal was to calculate how much municipalities with over 10,000 people are expelling in greenhouse gases in Canada on average by province. To help refine the GHG estimates for all the 400 municipalities that have 10,000 or more people both a top-down and a bottom-up calculation were used. For the top-down approach, the provincial GHG emission data, provincial population data, and municipal population data was used to determine estimates for GHG emissions per municipality. The bottom-up approach used the actual municipality GHG emission data. These numbers were then brought together to provide GHG emission data for all 400 municipalities. This was meant to be more of a back of the envelop calculation.  Methodology 1. Obtain national and provincial population data 2. Obtain population data for municipalities. 3. Obtain national and provincial GHG emission data (Tonnes CO2 equivalent) 4. Obtain GHG emission data from at least 10% of the municipalities in each province. (Ensure that the number sampled is greater than 2 if possible.) 5. Determine average GHG emissions per capita for municipalities in each province. Averages for each province are important as each one has different energy inputs that can affect the emissions.  Steps 1. Obtain national and provincial population data a. Obtained national and provincial population data for 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 from Statistics Canada (Canada 2013). 2. Obtained national and provincial GHG emission data (Tonnes CO2 equivalent)  205  a. Data was obtained from the United Nations website for National Inventory Submissions 2013. The National Inventory Report for Canada was used to obtain Provincial CO2 equivalent GHG data for 1990, 2000, and 2011 (United Nations 2013). 3. Obtain population data for municipalities. a. Obtained national and provincial population data for 1996, 2001, 2006, and 2011 was obtained from Statistics Canada. (Canada 2002) (Canada 2012) This data was also cleaned as some municipalities had amalgamated during these years.  4. Obtain GHG emission data from at least 10% of the municipalities in each province. (Ensure that the number sampled is greater than 2 if possible) a. Much of this data was obtained directly from municipal websites and from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities website. Using search techniques like “"site:.fcm.ca/documents/reports/pcp/ "burlington"” proved useful. All together 33 reports were obtained that contained at the very least, municipal emissions data. Sources for these are listed in Table 6.2.  5. Determine average GHG emissions per capita for municipalities in each province. Averages for the municipalities in each province are important as each one has different energy inputs that can affect the emissions.  a. Given that CO2 equivalent data was obtained from various years, this data first needed to be all placed in a 2011 equivalent. The following calculations were used to bring data from 1996 to 2010 into a 2011 equivalent.   Let A = 2011 Census Data for the Municipality  Let B = 2006 Census Data for the Municipality  Let C = 2001 Census Data for the Municipality  Let D = 1996 Census Data for the Municipality  Let GHG_Data_2009 = Respective municipal GHG data from 2009  Let GHG_Data_2008 = Respective municipal GHG data from 2008  Let GHG_Data_2007 = Respective municipal GHG data from 2007  Let GHG_Data_2006 = Respective municipal GHG data from 2006 206   Let GHG_Data_2005 = Respective municipal GHG data from 2005  Let GHG_Data_2004 = Respective municipal GHG data from 2004  Let GHG_Data_2003 = Respective municipal GHG data from 2003  Let GHG_Data_2002 = Respective municipal GHG data from 2002  Let GHG_Data_2001 = Respective municipal GHG data from 2001  Let GHG_Data_2000 = Respective municipal GHG data from 2000  Let GHG_Data_1999 = Respective municipal GHG data from 1999  Let GHG_Data_1998 = Respective municipal GHG data from 1998  Let GHG_Data_1997 = Respective municipal GHG data from 1997  Let GHG_Data_1996 = Respective municipal GHG data from 1996   Bringing 2010 GHG data to 2011: 2011 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝐺𝐻𝐺_𝐷𝑎𝑡𝑎_2010 ∗𝐴𝐵 + �𝐴 − 𝐵5 � ∗ 4  Bringing 2009 GHG data to 2011: 2011 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝐺𝐻𝐺_𝐷𝑎𝑡𝑎_2009 ∗𝐴𝐵 + �𝐴 − 𝐵5 � ∗ 3  Bringing 2008 GHG data to 2011: 2011 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝐺𝐻𝐺_𝐷𝑎𝑡𝑎_2008 ∗𝐴𝐵 + �𝐴 − 𝐵5 � ∗ 2  Bringing 2007 GHG data to 2011: 2011 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝐺𝐻𝐺_𝐷𝑎𝑡𝑎_2007 ∗𝐴𝐵 + �𝐴 − 𝐵5 � ∗ 1  Bringing 2006 GHG data to 2011: 2011 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝐺𝐻𝐺_𝐷𝑎𝑡𝑎_2006 ∗𝐴𝐵 + �𝐴 − 𝐵5 � ∗ 0  Bringing 2005 GHG data to 2011: 2011 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝐺𝐻𝐺_𝐷𝑎𝑡𝑎_2005 ∗𝐴𝐶 + �𝐵 − 𝐶5 � ∗ 4  Bringing 2004 GHG data to 2011: 2011 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝐺𝐻𝐺_𝐷𝑎𝑡𝑎_2004 ∗𝐴𝐶 + �𝐵 − 𝐶5 � ∗ 3  Bringing 2003 GHG data to 2011: 2011 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝐺𝐻𝐺_𝐷𝑎𝑡𝑎_2003 ∗𝐴𝐶 + �𝐵 − 𝐶5 � ∗ 2  Bringing 2002 GHG data to 2011: 2011 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝐺𝐻𝐺_𝐷𝑎𝑡𝑎_2002 ∗𝐴𝐶 + �𝐵 − 𝐶5 � ∗ 1  Bringing 2001 GHG data to 2011: 207  2011 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝐺𝐻𝐺_𝐷𝑎𝑡𝑎_2001 ∗𝐴𝐶 + �𝐵 − 𝐶5 � ∗ 0  Bringing 2000 GHG data to 2011: 2011 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝐺𝐻𝐺_𝐷𝑎𝑡𝑎_2000 ∗𝐴𝐷 + �𝐶 − 𝐷5 � ∗ 4  Bringing 1999 GHG data to 2011: 2011 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝐺𝐻𝐺_𝐷𝑎𝑡𝑎_1999 ∗𝐴𝐷 + �𝐶 − 𝐷5 � ∗ 3  Bringing 1998 GHG data to 2011: 2011 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝐺𝐻𝐺_𝐷𝑎𝑡𝑎_1998 ∗𝐴𝐷 + �𝐶 − 𝐷5 � ∗ 2  Bringing 1997 GHG data to 2011: 2011 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝐺𝐻𝐺_𝐷𝑎𝑡𝑎_1997 ∗𝐴𝐷 + �𝐶 − 𝐷5 � ∗ 1  Bringing 1996 GHG data to 2011: 2011 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝐺𝐻𝐺_𝐷𝑎𝑡𝑎_1996 ∗𝐴𝐷 + �𝐶 − 𝐷5 � ∗ 0   The base data is provided in Table 6.2 and Table 6.3, and the results of these calculations are listed in Table 6.4.   208  Table 20: Selection of Canadian municipal GHG emissions data (tonnes CO2 equivalent) Selection of Canadian municipal GHG emissions data (tonnes CO2 equivalent) National population rank, 2011 Geographic code City Province Year of GHG data obtained GHG Data from Year Obtained Data converted to 2011 Source 1 3520005 Toronto (Ont.) Ontario 2011 23,200,000 23,200,000 (Fund 2013) 2 2466023 Montréal (Que.) Quebec 2009 13,090,000 13,182,145 (Montreal 2013) 3 4806016 Calgary (Alta.) Alberta 2010 17,000,000 17,341,575 (Calgary 2006) 4 3506008 Ottawa (Ont.) Ontario 1998 9,113,757 10,845,882 (Ottawa 2004) 5 4811061 Edmonton (Alta.) Alberta 2009 13,681,000 14,255,495 (Pembina 2012) 7 4611040 Winnipeg (Man.) Manitoba 2007 2,383,000 2,472,929 (Transportation & Winnipeg 2007) 8 5915022 Vancouver (B.C.) British Columbia 2008 2,740,000 2,811,160 (Pembina 2009) 10 3525005 Hamilton (Ont.) Ontario 2006 12,758,652 13,147,815 (Stantec 2009) 12 5915004 Surrey (B.C.) British Columbia 2007 2,276,185 2,601,917 (Surrey 2013) 14 1209034 Halifax (N.S.) Nova Scotia 2002 6,775,289 7,040,664 (Consulting 2006) 15 3539036 London (Ont.) Ontario 2012 2,900,000 2,900,000 (London 2013) 16 3519036 Markham (Ont.) Ontario 2006 2,451,268 2,827,393 (Canada 2009) 209  Selection of Canadian municipal GHG emissions data (tonnes CO2 equivalent) National population rank, 2011 Geographic code City Province Year of GHG data obtained GHG Data from Year Obtained Data converted to 2011 Source 17 3519028 Vaughan (Ont.) Ontario 2006 1,695,612 2,046,531 (Vaughan 2013) 21 4711066 Saskatoon (Sask.) Saskatchewan 2004 3,674,637 4,101,807 (Group 2009) 27 3524001 Oakville (Ont.) Ontario 2004 990,183 1,180,551 (Oakville 2004) 28 3524002 Burlington (Ont.) Ontario 2003 1,909,577 2,111,312 (Parkin 2004) 34 3543042 Barrie (Ont.) Ontario 2008 856,000 884,472 (CH2MHILL 2006) 44 5917021 Saanich (B.C.) British Columbia 2007 521,000 526,709 (District of Saanich 2010) 85 4811062 St. Albert (Alta.) Alberta 2008 742,019 769,839 (Stantec 2010a) 87 3521024 Caledon (Ont.) Ontario 2011 312,300 769,839 (Gerard 2011) 103 4607062 Brandon (Man.) Manitoba 2003 1,327,619 1,568,067 (Bates 2008) 133 5907041 Penticton (B.C.) British Columbia 2007 231,789 237,380 (Stantec 2011) 140 3531011 Stratford (Ont.) Ontario 2005 323,070 334,350 (CH2MHILL 2008) 155 4811049 Spruce Grove (Alta.) Alberta 2003 329,840 592,882 (City of Spruce Grove 2004) 167 1001485 Conception Bay South (N.L.) Newfoundland 2008 143,753 154,505 (South 2012) 210  Selection of Canadian municipal GHG emissions data (tonnes CO2 equivalent) National population rank, 2011 Geographic code City Province Year of GHG data obtained GHG Data from Year Obtained Data converted to 2011 Source 215 1306020 Riverview (N.B.) New Brunswick 2008 198,711 207,131 (Stantec 2010b) 234 5915070 Pitt Meadows (B.C.) British Columbia 2007 88,567 97,898 (HYLA Environmental Services Ltd. 2011) 268 4811048 Stony Plain (Alta.) Alberta 2006 129,087 157,153 (Schmidt 2007) 297 5927008 Powell River (B.C.) British Columbia 2010 69,610 69,831 (River 2014) 327 1315011 Bathurst (N.B.) New Brunswick 2000 201,394 188,679 (Torrie 2007) 345 5949011 Terrace (B.C.) British Columbia 2010 80,303 80,536 (Terrace 2014)    211  Table 21: Population data for selection of Canadian municipalities whose GHG emissions data was obtained Population data for selection of Canadian municipalities whose GHG emissions data was obtained National population rank, 2011 Geographic code City Province 1996 2001 2006 2011 1 3520005 Toronto (Ont.) Ontario 2,385,421 2,481,494 2,503,281 2,615,060 2 2466023 Montréal (Que.) Quebec 1,016,376 1,039,534 1,620,693 1,649,519 3 4806016 Calgary (Alta.) Alberta 768,082 878,866 988,812 1,096,833 4 3506008 Ottawa (Ont.) Ontario 721,136 774,072 812,129 883,391 5 4811061 Edmonton (Alta.) Alberta 616,306 666,104 730,372 812,201 7 4611040 Winnipeg (Man.) Manitoba 618,477 619,544 633,451 663,617 8 5915022 Vancouver (B.C.) British Columbia 514,008 545,671 578,051 603,502 10 3525005 Hamilton (Ont.) Ontario 467,799 490,268 504,559 519,949 12 5915004 Surrey (B.C.) British Columbia 330,393 343,005 394,976 468,251 14 1209034 Halifax (N.S.) Nova Scotia 342,851 359,111 372,679 390,096 15 3539036 London (Ont.) Ontario 325,669 336,539 352,395 366,151 16 3519036 Markham (Ont.) Ontario 173,383 208,615 261,573 301,709 17 3519028 Vaughan (Ont.) Ontario 132,549 182,022 238,866 288,301 21 4711066 Saskatoon (Sask.) Saskatchewan 193,653 196,811 202,408 222,189 27 3524001 Oakville (Ont.) Ontario 128,405 144,738 165,613 182,520 28 3524002 Burlington (Ont.) Ontario 136,976 150,836 164,415 175,779 212  Population data for selection of Canadian municipalities whose GHG emissions data was obtained National population rank, 2011 Geographic code City Province 1996 2001 2006 2011 34 3543042 Barrie (Ont.) Ontario 79,191 103,710 128,430 135,711 44 5917021 Saanich (B.C.) British Columbia 101,388 103,654 108,265 109,752 85 4811062 St. Albert (Alta.) Alberta 46,888 53,081 57,764 61,466 87 3521024 Caledon (Ont.) Ontario 39,893 50,595 57,050 59,460 103 4607062 Brandon (Man.) Manitoba 39,175 39,716 41,511 46,061 133 5907041 Penticton (B.C.) British Columbia 30,987 30,985 31,909 32,877 140 3531011 Stratford (Ont.) Ontario 29,676 29,007 30,516 30,886 155 4811049 Spruce Grove (Alta.) Alberta 14,271 15,983 19,541 26,171 167 1001485 Conception Bay South (N.L.) Newfoundland 19,265 19,772 21,966 24,848 215 1306020 Riverview (N.B.) New Brunswick 16,684 17,010 17,832 19,128 234 5915070 Pitt Meadows (B.C.) British Columbia 13,436 14,670 15,623 17,736 268 4811048 Stony Plain (Alta.) Alberta 8,274 9,589 12,363 15,051 297 5927008 Powell River (B.C.) British Columbia 13,131 12,983 12,957 13,165 327 1315011 Bathurst (N.B.) New Brunswick 13,815 12,924 12,714 12,275 345 5949011 Terrace (B.C.) British Columbia 12,783 12,109 11,320 11,486 213  Table 22: Selection of Canadian municipal GHG emissions data (tonnes CO2 equivalent) provided in 2011 estimates and per person Selection of Canadian municipal GHG emissions data (tonnes CO2 equivalent) provided in 2011 estimates and per person National population rank, 2011 Geographic code City Province 2011 Population 2011 Municipal GHGs Tonnes CO2 per person from municipal data source* Tonnes CO2 equivalent per person in municipality from Provincial data source** 1 3520005 Toronto (Ont.) Ontario 2,615,060 23,200,000 8.87 13.45 2 2466023 Montréal (Que.) Quebec 1,649,519 13,182,145 7.99 10.62 3 4806016 Calgary (Alta.) Alberta 1,096,833 17,341,575 15.81 44.50 4 3506008 Ottawa (Ont.) Ontario 883,391 10,845,882 12.28 13.45 5 4811061 Edmonton (Alta.) Alberta 812,201 14,255,495 17.55 44.50 7 4611040 Winnipeg (Man.) Manitoba 663,617 2,472,929 3.73 14.99 8 5915022 Vancouver (B.C.) British Columbia 603,502 2,811,160 4.66 11.06 10 3525005 Hamilton (Ont.) Ontario 519,949 13,147,815 25.29 13.45 12 5915004 Surrey (B.C.) British Columbia 468,251 2,626,854 5.56 11.06 14 1209034 Halifax (N.S.) Nova Scotia 390,096 7,040,664 18.05 20.27 15 3539036 London (Ont.) Ontario 366,151 2,900,000 7.92 13.45 16 3519036 Markham (Ont.) Ontario 301,709 2,827,393 9.37 13.45 214  Selection of Canadian municipal GHG emissions data (tonnes CO2 equivalent) provided in 2011 estimates and per person National population rank, 2011 Geographic code City Province 2011 Population 2011 Municipal GHGs Tonnes CO2 per person from municipal data source* Tonnes CO2 equivalent per person in municipality from Provincial data source** 17 3519028 Vaughan (Ont.) Ontario 288,301 2,046,531 7.10 13.45 21 4711066 Saskatoon (Sask.) Saskatchewan 222,189 4,101,807 18.46 41.37 27 3524001 Oakville (Ont.) Ontario 182,520 1,180,551 6.47 13.45 28 3524002 Burlington (Ont.) Ontario 175,779 2,111,312 12.01 13.45 34 3543042 Barrie (Ont.) Ontario 135,711 884,472 6.52 13.45 44 5917021 Saanich (B.C.) British Columbia 109,752 526,709 4.80 11.06 85 4811062 St. Albert (Alta.) Alberta 61,466 769,839 12.52 44.50 87 3521024 Caledon (Ont.) Ontario 59,460 325,493 5.47 13.45 103 4607062 Brandon (Man.) Manitoba 46,061 1,568,067 34.04 14.99 133 5907041 Penticton (B.C.) British Columbia 32,877 237,380 7.22 11.06 140 3531011 Stratford (Ont.) Ontario 30,886 334,350 10.83 13.45 155 4811049 Spruce Grove (Alta.) Alberta 26,171 592,882 22.65 44.50 167 1001485 Conception Bay South (N.L.) Newfoundland 24,848 154,505 6.22 17.62 215  Selection of Canadian municipal GHG emissions data (tonnes CO2 equivalent) provided in 2011 estimates and per person National population rank, 2011 Geographic code City Province 2011 Population 2011 Municipal GHGs Tonnes CO2 per person from municipal data source* Tonnes CO2 equivalent per person in municipality from Provincial data source** 215 1306020 Riverview (N.B.) New Brunswick 19,128 207,131 10.83 21.25 234 5915070 Pitt Meadows (B.C.) British Columbia 17,736 97,898 5.52 11.06 268 4811048 Stony Plain (Alta.) Alberta 15,051 157,153 10.44 44.50 297 5927008 Powell River (B.C.) British Columbia 13,165 69,831 5.30 11.06 327 1315011 Bathurst (N.B.) New Brunswick 12,275 188,679 15.37 21.25 345 5949011 Terrace (B.C.) British Columbia 11,486 80,536 7.01 11.06 *This data was determined by dividing the municipal GHG emission data by Statistics Canada municipal population data.  ** This data was determined by using multiplying the municipal population as a percentage of provincial population by the total GHGs for the province. An example of this is provided in item 5c following Table 6.5.    216   b. After this was completed, municipal averages were taken from each province from the data set of 33 municipalities. This data is provided in Table 6.5. Table 23: Summary of data obtained and per capita comparisons for data sources Summary of data obtained and per capita comparisons for data sources Province # Cities Per Capita GHG data Obtained % of Cities over 10,000 where Per Capita GHG data Obtained Tonnes CO2 equivalent Average per capita GHG emission estimates based on StatCan municipal population data and actual municipal GHG data for cities with over 10,000 people Average per capita GHG emission estimates based on StatCan municipal population data and UN GHG data for cities over 10,000 people Newfoundland and Labrador 1 14.29% 6.22 16.36 Prince Edward Island 0 0.00% N/A 14.11 Nova Scotia* 3 23.08% 19.01 20.27 New Brunswick 2 20.00% 13.10 21.25 Quebec 1 1.00% 7.99 10.62 Ontario 11 7.69% 10.19 13.45 Manitoba 2 18.18% 18.88 14.99 Saskatchewan 1 11.11% 18.46 46.04 Alberta 5 11.36% 15.80 44.50 British Columbia 7 11.86% 5.73 11.06 Yukon 0 0.00% N/A 14.45 Northwest Territories 0 N/A N/A N/A Nunavut 0 N/A N/A N/A  c. The above averages were then compared against provincial CO2 equivalent GHG emission data for each province. An example is below. o Ontario had a population of 13,263,500 in 2011. 217  o Toronto had a population of 2,615,060 in 2011. o Toronto had 19.91% of the population of Ontario in 2011. o Ontario had 170,600,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent in GHG emissions in 2011. o Multiplying the percentage of Ontario's population that Toronto had in 2011 by the amount of emissions for Ontario, one would obtain 33,966,460. o This would provide Toronto per capita emissions of 13.45 tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2011. d. When the previous calculation was completed for (c) above, for all 400 of the municipalities with populations of over 10,000 it became apparent that there could be potentially a large gap between what municipalities were reporting and what was recorded for the province. This gap could be accounted for by not having all municipal GHG data available, which could in turn skew the results if some of these municipalities were extremely large emitters of GHGs. Given that the primary goal of this research was not to necessarily uncover this, it was thought best to simply use the provincial GHG data to estimate municipal emissions. The averages of every municipality were obtained in the same fashion as the example above for Toronto. Once these averages were obtained, a ratio of GHG emissions was also created using Quebec as a baseline of "1" since it had the lowest emissions per capita. This table was used for other calculations for Universities and is provided below.  218  Table 24: Multiplier table for how much more each municipality with populations over 10,000 expel in tonnes CO2 equivalent in other provinces Multiplier table for how much more each municipality with populations over 10,000 expel in tonnes CO2 equivalent in other provinces Province Ratio Table (Quebec = 1) Newfoundland and Labrador 1.54 Prince Edward Island 1.33 Nova Scotia* 1.91 New Brunswick 2.00 Quebec 1.00 Ontario 1.27 Manitoba 1.41 Saskatchewan 4.34 Alberta 4.19 British Columbia 1.04 Yukon 1.36 Northwest Territories N/A Nunavut N/A   219  Appendix C  Average Greenhouse Gas Emission for Canadian Colleges and Universities with Populations over 10,000 people The estimation of the GHG emissions for the 33 universities and colleges for 2010/2011 was determined by the following process: 15 Methodology 1. Obtain the number of full time equivalent (FTE) students and faculty to determine which universities have a combined total of over 10,000. 2. Estimate the GHG data for the Canadian universities and colleges whose combined full time equivalent students and faculty are over 10,000. Steps 1. Obtain the number of full time equivalent (FTE) students and faculty to determine which universities have a combined total of over 10,000. a. Data for the number of full time equivalent (FTE) students and faculty was obtained from Almanacs from the Canadian Association of University Teachers. All of the actual data is listed in the following Table 6.8 to Table 6.12. b. The almanac data from 2006/2007 to 2010/2011 was utilized to estimate the FTE students and faculty in each university and college for 2011/2012. The calculations for this follow.  Let A =  the total number of full time equivalent students and faculty for the    university in 2006/2007                                                  15 Note: There could be problems with the below calculation for the following reasons: 1) universities may consume more GHG than municipalities due to the research intensity, but this could level out due to industrial GHG emissions in municipalities, 2) not all the Universities listed may have the same research intensity. Kwantlen may not have any energy intensive research projects occurring.   Some solutions to the problems listed above include the following: 1) investigate the actual GHG emissions to see how much is actually being emitted from the colleges and universities 2) eliminate universities without graduate programs as their energy intensity is less.   220  Let B =  the total number of full time equivalent students and faculty for the    university in 2007/2008 Let C =  the total number of full time equivalent students and faculty for the    university in 2008/2009 Let D =  the total number of full time equivalent students and faculty for the    university in 2009/2010 Let E =  the total number of full time equivalent students and faculty for the    university in 2010/2011 Let F =  the total number of full time equivalent students and faculty for the    university in 2011/2012 𝐹 = 𝐸 ∗⎝⎜⎜⎛1 +⎝⎜⎛��𝐵 − 𝐴𝐴 �+ �𝐶 − 𝐵𝐵 �+ �𝐷 − 𝐶𝐶 �+ �𝐸 − 𝐷𝐷 ��4⎠⎟⎞⎠⎟⎟⎞ 2. Estimate the GHG data for the Canadian universities and colleges whose combined full time equivalent students and faculty are over 10,000 a. The data for 10 of the universities is provided in Table 6.13. For universities where the GHG data was not in 2011 figures, the following calculations were used: 16 Let A = University population data for same year as GHG data Let B = University population data for 2011 Let C = GHG data obtained for the university for year other than 2011 Let D = GHG estimate for 2011 𝐷 = 𝐶 ∗ �𝐵𝐴�                                                  16 This calculation assumes that GHG emissions increase proportionately to an increase in university population. 221  b. GHG data for the remaining 23 universities and colleges where GHG data was not obtained was determined by obtaining average per capita emissions for the provinces where university GHG data was obtained. These averages are provided in Table 6.7. Table 25: Estimated GHG emissions for Canadian universities Estimated GHG emissions for Canadian universities in 2011 Number of Samples Province Total Estimated GHG in 2011 Total Estimated Population in 2011 Estimated Per Capita GHG Emissions in 2011 Universities in Sample 4 Ontario 331,259 162,971 2.03 Universities listed in Table 6.13. 1 Quebec 67,840 32,933 2.06 2 British Columbia 87,336 60,486 1.44 1 Alberta 374,195 30,331 12.34 1 Saskatchewan 172,601 19,713 8.76 1 Nova Scotia 111,141 12,037 9.23 c. As the per capita GHG emissions for universities varied significantly to per capita municipal emissions in Table 6.5, estimates for provinces not listed in Table 6.7 were not calculated. However, for other universities in the same provinces as listed in Table 6.7, the estimated per capita GHG emissions in 2011 figures were used in calculating estimated GHG emissions. The calculation is below and the results are in Table 6.14.   Let A = estimated population of the university in 2011 Let B = estimated per capita GHG emissions in 2011 Let C = estimated total GHG emissions for the university in 2011 𝐶 = 𝐴 ∗ 𝐵 222  Table 26: 2006/2007 Full time equivalent student and full time faculty data (CAUT 2010) 2006/2007 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Student and Full Time (FT) Faculty Data  Institution FTE Students FT Faculty Total 1 University of Toronto 64,814 2,520 67,334 2 Université de Montréal  32,065 1,503 33,568 3 York University  45,026 1,323 46,349 4 University of British Columbia  31,305 2,127 33,432 5 University of Alberta  33,444 1,446 34,890 6 Université d’Ottawa / University of Ottawa  29,607 1,029 30,636 7 University of Western Ontario  31,361 1,359 32,720 8 Université Laval  29,025 1,290 30,315 9 McGill University  N/A N/A N/A 10 University of Waterloo  25,209 954 26,163 11 University of Calgary  24,579 1,527 26,106 12 Université du Québec à Montréal  26,898 951 27,849 13 University of Guelph  20,486 744 21,230 14 Concordia University  23,833 870 24,703 15 McMaster University  21,964 1,161 23,125 16 Ryerson University  22,040 681 22,721 17 University of Manitoba  22,500 1,098 23,598 18 Carleton University  20,577 660 21,237 19 Simon Fraser University  17,479 756 18,235 20 Queen’s University at Kingston  18,097 777 18,874 21 University of Saskatchewan  15,114 936 16,050 22 University of Victoria  14,528 654 15,182 23 Université de Sherbrooke  15,648 900 16,548 24 Brock University  15,009 540 15,549 25 Memorial University of Newfoundland  15,480 828 16,308 26 Wilfrid Laurier University  13,244 474 13,718 27 Dalhousie University  13,282 960 14,242 28 University of Windsor  13,937 495 14,432 29 Grant McEwan University  N/A N/A N/A 30 Mount Royal University  N/A N/A N/A 31 University of New Brunswick  10,593 522 11,115 223  2006/2007 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Student and Full Time (FT) Faculty Data  Institution FTE Students FT Faculty Total 32 Kwantlen Polytechnic University  N/A N/A N/A 33 University of Regina  N/A N/A N/A  224  Table 27: 2007/2008 Full time equivalent student and full time faculty data (CAUT 2011) 2007/2008 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Student and Full Time (FT) Faculty Data  Institution FTE Students FT Faculty Total 1 University of Toronto 67,689 2,019 69,708 2 Université de Montréal  44,892 1,698 46,590 3 York University  45,005 1,368 46,373 4 University of British Columbia  38,964 1,641 40,605 5 University of Alberta  34,047 1,290 35,337 6 Université d’Ottawa / University of Ottawa  31,316 1,044 32,360 7 University of Western Ontario  31,110 1,146 32,256 8 Université Laval  28,727 1,233 29,960 9 McGill University  27,738 1,407 29,145 10 University of Waterloo  26,179 960 27,139 11 University of Calgary  24,389 1,068 25,457 12 Université du Québec à Montréal  26,622 930 27,552 13 University of Guelph  20,714 744 21,458 14 Concordia University  24,313 891 25,204 15 McMaster University  23,558 732 24,290 16 Ryerson University  22,692 702 23,394 17 University of Manitoba  24,500 852 25,352 18 Carleton University  20,649 681 21,330 19 Simon Fraser University  17,965 789 18,754 20 Queen’s University at Kingston  18,216 696 18,912 21 University of Saskatchewan  17,126 666 17,792 22 University of Victoria  14,528 648 15,176 23 Université de Sherbrooke  15,748 618 16,366 24 Brock University  14,587 531 15,118 25 Memorial University of Newfoundland  15,022 684 15,706 26 Wilfrid Laurier University  13,379 465 13,844 27 Dalhousie University  13,115 735 13,850 28 University of Windsor  13,170 504 13,674 29 Grant McEwan University  N/A N/A N/A 30 Mount Royal University  N/A N/A N/A 31 University of New Brunswick  10,413 528 10,941 225  2007/2008 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Student and Full Time (FT) Faculty Data  Institution FTE Students FT Faculty Total 32 Kwantlen Polytechnic University  N/A N/A N/A 33 University of Regina  11,010 342 11,352  226  Table 28: 2008/2009 Full time equivalent student and full time faculty data (CAUT 2012) 2008/2009 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Student and Full Time (FT) Faculty Data  Institution FTE Students FT Faculty Total 1 University of Toronto 67,689 2,019 69,708 2 Université de Montréal  44,892 1,698 46,590 3 York University  45,005 1,368 46,373 4 University of British Columbia  38,964 1,641 40,605 5 University of Alberta  34,047 1,290 35,337 6 Université d’Ottawa / University of Ottawa  31,316 1,044 32,360 7 University of Western Ontario  31,110 1,146 32,256 8 Université Laval  28,727 1,233 29,960 9 McGill University  27,738 1,407 29,145 10 University of Waterloo  26,179 960 27,139 11 University of Calgary  24,389 1,068 25,457 12 Université du Québec à Montréal  26,622 930 27,552 13 University of Guelph  20,714 744 21,458 14 Concordia University  24,313 891 25,204 15 McMaster University  23,558 732 24,290 16 Ryerson University  22,692 702 23,394 17 University of Manitoba  24,500 852 25,352 18 Carleton University  20,649 681 21,330 19 Simon Fraser University  17,965 789 18,754 20 Queen’s University at Kingston  18,216 696 18,912 21 University of Saskatchewan  17,126 666 17,792 22 University of Victoria  14,528 648 15,176 23 Université de Sherbrooke  15,748 618 16,366 24 Brock University  14,587 531 15,118 25 Memorial University of Newfoundland  15,022 684 15,706 26 Wilfrid Laurier University  13,379 465 13,844 27 Dalhousie University  13,115 735 13,850 28 University of Windsor  13,170 504 13,674 29 Grant McEwan University  N/A N/A N/A 30 Mount Royal University  N/A N/A N/A 31 University of New Brunswick  10,413 528 10,941 227  2008/2009 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Student and Full Time (FT) Faculty Data  Institution FTE Students FT Faculty Total 32 Kwantlen Polytechnic University  N/A N/A N/A 33 University of Regina  11,010 342 11,352  228  Table 29: 2009/2010 Full time equivalent student and full time faculty data (CAUT 2013) 2009/2010 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Student and Full Time (FT) Faculty Data  Institution FTE Students FT Faculty Total 1 University of Toronto 71,085 2,646 73,731 2 Université de Montréal  47,669 1,707 49,376 3 York University  46,768 1,362 48,130 4 University of British Columbia  35,966 2,511 38,477 5 University of Alberta  34,903 1,581 36,484 6 Université d’Ottawa / University of Ottawa  33,411 1,263 34,674 7 University of Western Ontario  32,322 1,443 33,765 8 Université Laval  29,912 1,209 31,121 9 McGill University  29,473 1,434 30,907 10 University of Waterloo  29,080 1,017 30,097 11 University of Calgary  26,898 1,650 28,548 12 Université du Québec à Montréal  26,406 921 27,327 13 University of Guelph  23,212 765 23,977 14 Concordia University  25,949 927 26,876 15 McMaster University  25,463 1,254 26,717 16 Ryerson University  24,713 897 25,610 17 University of Manitoba  23,331 1,140 24,471 18 Carleton University  21,672 792 22,464 19 Simon Fraser University  19,957 912 20,869 20 Queen’s University at Kingston  20,043 783 20,826 21 University of Saskatchewan  17,886 993 18,879 22 University of Victoria  16,731 699 17,430 23 Université de Sherbrooke  16,382 654 17,036 24 Brock University  15,335 549 15,884 25 Memorial University of Newfoundland  15,311 888 16,199 26 Wilfrid Laurier University  14,944 486 15,430 27 Dalhousie University  13,930 972 14,902 28 University of Windsor  13,683 498 14,181 29 Grant McEwan University  11,794 315 12,109 30 Mount Royal University  10,991 321 11,312 31 University of New Brunswick  9,989 516 10,505 229  2009/2010 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Student and Full Time (FT) Faculty Data  Institution FTE Students FT Faculty Total 32 Kwantlen Polytechnic University  9,359 345 9,704 33 University of Regina  9,951 429 10,380  230  Table 30: 2010/2011 Full time equivalent student and full time faculty data (CAUT 2014) 2010-2011 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Student and Full Time (FT) Faculty Data  Institution FTE Students FT Faculty Total 1 University of Toronto 72,331 2,649 74,980 2 Université de Montréal  49,325 1,248 50,573 3 York University  47,835 1,362 49,197 4 University of British Columbia  37,199 2,574 39,773 5 University of Alberta  35,610 1,524 37,134 6 Université d’Ottawa / University of Ottawa  34,995 1,269 36,264 7 University of Western Ontario  33,396 1,449 34,845 8 Université Laval  31,265 1,206 32,471 9 McGill University  30,535 1,419 31,954 10 University of Waterloo  30,671 1,056 31,727 11 University of Calgary  27,878 1,599 29,477 12 Université du Québec à Montréal  27,405 1,389 28,794 13 University of Guelph  27,878 756 28,634 14 Concordia University  26,873 966 27,839 15 McMaster University  25,866 1,275 27,141 16 Ryerson University  25,468 915 26,383 17 University of Manitoba  23,622 1,152 24,774 18 Carleton University  22,354 795 23,149 19 Simon Fraser University  21,343 915 22,258 20 Queen’s University at Kingston  20,831 771 21,602 21 University of Saskatchewan  17,829 1,047 18,876 22 University of Victoria  17,213 714 17,927 23 Université de Sherbrooke  16,922 669 17,591 24 Brock University  15,893 543 16,436 25 Memorial University of Newfoundland  15,449 900 16,349 26 Wilfrid Laurier University  15,741 501 16,242 27 Dalhousie University  14,701 963 15,664 28 University of Windsor  14,031 501 14,532 29 Grant McEwan University  12,673 333 13,006 30 Mount Royal University  11,336 333 11,669 31 University of New Brunswick  10,015 534 10,549 231  2010-2011 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Student and Full Time (FT) Faculty Data  Institution FTE Students FT Faculty Total 32 Kwantlen Polytechnic University  9,954 363 10,317 33 University of Regina  9,653 453 10,106 232  Table 31:  Selection of Canadian university GHG emissions data (tonnes CO2 equivalent) Selection of Canadian university GHG emissions data (tonnes CO2 equivalent) University  City Province Year of GHG data obtained GHG Data from Year Obtained Data converted to 2011 Source University of Toronto Toronto Ontario 2008 164,491 177,828 (Toronto & Honeywell 2009) University of British Columbia Vancouver British Columbia 2011 63,803 63,803 (UBC 2011e) University of Western Ontario London Ontario 2011 50,180 50,180 (Western 2014) McGill University Montréal Quebec 2004 60,038 67,840 (Gell 2006) University of Calgary Calgary Alberta 2008 328,573 374,195 (Calgary 2009) McMaster University Hamilton Ontario 2007 47,360 55,076 (Zerofootprint 2009) Queen’s University at Kingston Kingston Ontario 2010 46,586 48,125 (Queen’s 2012) University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon Saskatchewan 2009 165,300 172,601 (Saskatchewan 2011) University of Victoria Victoria British Columbia 2009 21,940 23,533 (Victoria 2010) Dalhousie University Halifax Nova Scotia 2010 108,537 111,141 (Sustainability 2011) 233  Table 32: Estimated GHG emissions of Canadian universities Estimated GHG emissions of Canadian universities University Province Total Estimated Population in 2011 Estimated GHG in 2011 University of Toronto Ontario 77,000 177,828 Université de Montréal  Quebec 56,690 116,777* York University  Ontario 49,930 101,488* University of British Columbia  British Columbia 41,791 63,803 University of Alberta  Alberta 37,644 464,419* Université d’Ottawa / University of Ottawa  Ontario 37,768 76,768* University of Western Ontario  Ontario 35,384 50,180 Université Laval  Quebec 33,063 68,108* McGill University  Quebec 32,933 67,840 University of Waterloo  Ontario 33,312 67,710* University of Calgary  Alberta 30,331 374,195 Université du Québec à Montréal  Quebec 29,634 61,044* University of Guelph  Ontario 30,927 62,863* Concordia University  Ontario 28,703 58,343* McMaster University  Ontario 28,248 55,076 Ryerson University  Ontario 27,341 55,573* University of Manitoba  Manitoba 25,130 N/A Carleton University  Ontario 23,623 48,016* Simon Fraser University  British Columbia 23,361 33,731* Queen’s University at Kingston  Ontario 22,339 48,175 University of Saskatchewan  Saskatchewan 19,713 172,601 University of Victoria  British Columbia 18,696 23,533 Université de Sherbrooke  Quebec 17,941 36,958* Brock University  Ontario 16,669 33,881* Memorial University of Newfoundland  Newfoundland 16,357 N/A 234  Estimated GHG emissions of Canadian universities University Province Total Estimated Population in 2011 Estimated GHG in 2011 Wilfrid Laurier University  Ontario 16,956 34,466* Dalhousie University  Nova Scotia 16,040 111,141 University of Windsor  Ontario 14,574 29,624* Grant McEwan University  Alberta 13,970 172,342* Mount Royal University  Alberta 12,037 148,504* University of New Brunswick  New Brunswick 10,429 N/A Kwantlen Polytechnic University  British Columbia 10,969 15,838* University of Regina  Manitoba 9,765 N/A *Note: Estimate was obtained by multiplying the estimated population by the estimated per capita GHG emissions from data in Table 6.7.   235  Appendix D US Patent and World Population Statistics In order to provide a better assessment of the increase in patent applications and grants the data was normalized with the following: • the increase population of the age group of the population that would likely file applications,  • the increase of the population that is functionally literate within the above age group. As some of the best data available for ages in the USA and the world provided a span of ages of 15-64 years, this age range was used for the age group likely to file USA patent applications. It is understood that there may not be very many people filing patents at the age of 15, but with the increase of accelerator programs like Silicon Valley’s Y-Combinator, and Vancouver’s GrowLab and “The Next Big Thing” the average age of people being listed on patents could decrease over time.    The tables below show the population growth as well as the aggregated data for US utility patent applications and patents granted for USS and the rest of the world.  This appendix is broken into the following sub-sections:  • Population Data • USA Patent Applications and Grant Data • Normalized Data for USA Patent Applications and Grants  236  Population Data Table 33: Population statistics for the USA and the rest of the world (WorldBank 2012) Population Statistics for the USA and the Rest of the World 5-Year Intervals 5-Year Averages % Growth (World minus USA) USA World (World minus USA) USA World 63' - 67' 3,135,556,902 194,141,200 3,329,698,102 -- -- -- 68' - 72' 3,482,873,644 205,198,400 3,688,072,044 11.1% 5.7% 10.8% 73' - 77' 3,849,169,628 216,002,000 4,065,171,628 10.5% 5.3% 10.2% 78' - 82' 4,212,945,277 227,199,000 4,440,144,277 9.5% 5.2% 9.2% 83' - 87' 4,604,861,364 237,992,600 4,842,853,964 9.3% 4.8% 9.1% 88' - 92' 5,026,658,359 250,087,200 5,276,745,559 9.2% 5.1% 9.0% 93' - 97' 5,430,828,047 266,274,800 5,697,102,847 8.0% 6.5% 8.0% 98' - 02' 5,818,975,439 281,930,112 6,100,905,551 7.1% 5.9% 7.1% 03' - 07' 6,195,271,589 295,608,190 6,490,879,779 6.5% 4.9% 6.4% 08' - 12' 6,576,628,505 309,138,715 6,885,767,220 6.2% 4.6% 6.1% After obtaining the data above, the goal was to determine the number of people between the ages of 15-64 years old in the same categories. All of this data was available on the WorldBank.org website with the exception of an aggregate percentage figure for the population of all countries outside of the US that is between the ages of 15-64 years old. To determine this, the below calculation was used. Let A = % of world population between the ages of 15-65 years old Let B = % of world population between the ages of 15-65 years old (excluding only the US statistics) Let C = % of the USA population between the ages of 15-65 years old Let D = World population Let E = USA population Solving for B: 237  𝐴 = �(𝐷 − 𝐸)𝐷� ∗ 𝐵 + �𝐸𝐷� ∗ 𝐶 𝐴 −  �𝐸𝐷� ∗ 𝐶 = �(𝐷 − 𝐸)𝐷� ∗ 𝐵 𝐵 = �𝐴 −  �𝐸𝐷� ∗ 𝐶� ∗ �𝐷(𝐷 − 𝐸)� After solving for B above the “World minus US” sections of the table below were able to be completed for Table 6.16, Table 6.19, and Table 6.20. Table 34: Population statistics for the USA and the rest of the world (ages 15-64 years) (WorldBank 2012) Population Statistics for the USA and the Rest of the World (Ages 15-64 years) 5-Year Intervals 5-Year Averages % Growth (World minus USA) USA World (World minus USA) USA World 63' - 67' 1,780,229,701 117,189,868 1,897,412,639 -- -- -- 68' - 72' 1,977,275,418 127,235,052 2,104,499,341 11.1% 8.6% 10.9% 73' - 77' 2,200,261,922 139,024,307 2,339,280,214 11.3% 9.3% 11.2% 78' - 82' 2,459,454,878 150,066,895 2,609,529,718 11.8% 7.9% 11.6% 83' - 87' 2,753,945,532 158,023,110 2,911,984,276 12.0% 5.3% 11.6% 88' - 92' 3,045,291,199 164,711,209 3,210,009,630 10.6% 4.2% 10.2% 93' - 97' 3,330,481,438 174,714,945 3,505,199,472 9.4% 6.1% 9.2% 98' - 02' 3,653,076,002 186,894,584 3,839,973,501 9.7% 7.0% 9.6% 03' - 07' 3,996,452,875 198,351,665 4,194,808,070 9.4% 6.1% 9.2% 08' - 12' 4,309,793,036 207,264,838 4,517,063,765 7.8% 4.5% 7.7%   238  USA Patent Applications and Grant Data All of the USA patent data was readily available from the “US Patent and Trademark Office” website. The below stables show the steady increase in USA patent applications and sporadic increase in USA patents granted. 239  Table 35: USA utility patent applications (USA 2013) USA Utility Patent Applications 5-Year Intervals Foreign Origin (5-Year Average) USA Origin (5-Year Average) Total (5-Year Average) % Growth Foreign % Growth USA % Total Growth 63' - 67' 21,552 66,910 88,462 -- -- -- 68' - 72' 30,925 68,960 99,885 43.5% 3.1% 12.9% 73' - 77' 37,504 64,677 102,181 21.3% -6.2% 2.3% 78' - 82' 42,397 61,959 104,355 13.0% -4.2% 2.1% 83' - 87' 52,687 63,781 116,469 24.3% 2.9% 11.6% 88' - 92' 73,186 85,717 158,903 38.9% 34.4% 36.4% 93' - 97' 85,788 111,697 197,484 17.2% 30.3% 24.3% 98' - 02' 131,654 162,372 294,026 53.5% 45.4% 48.9% 03' - 07' 184,553 209,895 394,448 40.2% 29.3% 34.2% 08' - 12' 246,808 243,002 489,810 33.7% 15.8% 24.2% Table 36: USA utility patents granted (USA 2013) USA Utility Patents Granted 5-Year Intervals Foreign Origin (5-Year Average) USA Origin (5-Year Average) Total (5-Year Average) % Growth Foreign % Growth USA % Total Growth 63' - 67' 11,629 46,364 57,994 -- -- -- 68' - 72' 18,696 50,148 68,844 60.8% 8.2% 18.7% 73' - 77' 24,658 46,925 71,583 31.9% -6.4% 4.0% 78' - 82' 23,725 36,361 60,087 -3.8% -22.5% -16.1% 83' - 87' 31,419 38,488 69,907 32.4% 5.8% 16.3% 88' - 92' 43,256 48,301 91,556 37.7% 25.5% 31.0% 93' - 97' 47,044 57,570 104,613 8.8% 19.2% 14.3% 98' - 02' 73,606 84,767 158,372 56.5% 47.2% 51.4% 03' - 07' 78,405 83,230 161,635 6.5% -1.8% 2.1% 08' - 12' 105,014 99,465 204,479 33.9% 19.5% 26.5%   240  Normalized Data for USA Patent Applications and Grants This above base data also needs to take into account the age of the population as well as the literacy rate. For ease of calculations with the data sources available the following assumptions were made: • That people filing patents would be between the ages of 15-64 years old.  • That the rate of functional literacy remained constant • That people foreign applicants for US patents is equally proportional to each foreign countries respective population  Taking an example of how the calculation for 60’ – 72’ in “World minus USA” column was in the below table was simply calculated by the following method: Take the “% Foreign Growth” from the “USA Utility Patent Applications” table for 60’ – 72’ and subtract the “World minus USA” from the “Population Statistics for the USA and the Rest of the World” table. For example, the numerical calculation for 60’ – 72’ in “World minus USA” below is [43.5% - 11.1% = 32.4%]. Similar calculations are used for the remainder of the table. 241  Table 37: USA utility patent applications (normalized with population growth for people ages 15-64 years) USA Utility Patent Applications (Normalized with Population growth for people ages 15-64 years) 5-Year Intervals World minus USA (% Growth) USA (% Growth) World (% Growth) 63' - 67' -- -- -- 68' - 72' 32.4% -5.5% 2.0% 73' - 77' 10.0% -15.5% -8.9% 78' - 82' 1.3% -12.1% -9.4% 83' - 87' 12.3% -2.4% 0.0% 88' - 92' 28.3% 30.2% 26.2% 93' - 97' 7.9% 24.2% 15.1% 98' - 02' 43.8% 38.4% 39.3% 03' - 07' 30.8% 23.1% 24.9% 08' - 12' 25.9% 11.3% 16.5% Taking an example of how the calculation for 60’ – 72’ in “World minus USA” column was in the below table was simply calculated by the following method: Take the “% Foreign Growth” from the “USA Utility Patents Granted” table for 60’ – 72’ and subtract the “World minus USA” from the “Population Statistics for the USA and the Rest of the World” table. For example, the numerical calculation for 60’ – 72’ in “World minus USA” below is [60.8% - 11.1% = 49.7%]. Similar calculations are used for the remainder of the table. 242  Table 38: USA utility patents granted (normalized with population growth for people ages 15-64 years) USA Utility Patents Granted (Normalized with Population growth for people ages 15-64 years) 5-Year Intervals World minus USA (% Growth) USA (% Growth) World (% Growth) 63' - 67' -- -- -- 68' - 72' 49.7% -0.4% 7.8% 73' - 77' 20.6% -15.7% -7.2% 78' - 82' -15.6% -30.5% -27.6% 83' - 87' 20.5% 0.5% 4.8% 88' - 92' 27.1% 21.3% 20.7% 93' - 97' -0.6% 13.1% 5.1% 98' - 02' 46.8% 40.3% 41.8% 03' - 07' -2.9% -7.9% -7.2% 08' - 12' 26.1% 15.0% 18.8%      243  Appendix E CLL Meetings Attended The following table outlines a list of all the CLL meetings that were attended, and the number of data points that were obtained. (The data points are discrete approximate 5-minute intervals where notes were taken during the meetings.) 244  Table 39: Campus as a Living Lab Working Group meetings attended and data points (notes) written Campus as a Living Lab Working Group Meetings Attended Meeting # Date Running Count Data Points 113 2012-12-06 1 10 114 2012-12-13 2 9 115 2013-01-10 3 6 118 2013-02-07 4 5 119 2013-02-14 5 7 120 2013-02-28 6 7 121 2013-03-07 7 14 122 2013-03-14 8 16 123 2013-03-21 9 40 124 2013-03-28 10 30 125 2013-04-04 11 16 126 2013-04-11 12 15 130 2013-05-09 13 16 131 2013-05-23 14 6 133 2013-06-06 15 16 134 2013-06-20 16 11 135 2013-06-27 17 15 137 2013-07-25 18 13 139 2013-08-22 19 14 140 2013-09-05 20 12 144 2013-10-10 21 11 145 2013-10-17 22 14 146 2013-10-24 23 13 147 2013-10-31 24 14 148 2013-11-07 25 14 149 2013-11-21 26 18 151 2013-12-05 27 12 152 2013-12-12 28 20 153 2014-01-09 29 10 154 2014-01-16 30 17 155 2014-01-23 31 12 245  Campus as a Living Lab Working Group Meetings Attended Meeting # Date Running Count Data Points 156 2014-01-30 32 16 157 2014-02-13 33 20 159 2014-02-27 34 17 160 2013-03-06 35 15 162 2014-03-27 36 16   Total Data Points Collected 517    246  Appendix F Past and Current UBC Partnerships The following table provides a list of current UBC partnerships as well as current projects they are engaged with UBC.  247  Table 40: Past and current UBC partnerships (UBC 2013d) Past and Current UBC Partnerships Who Current Project(s) Alpha Technologies Inc. Energy Storage BC Hydro Continuous Optimization Builtspace Technologies Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (Building Information Modeling) CISCO Canada Integration of All Building Systems Testing and Certification Facility For “Converged Network” Devices City of Vancouver Greenest City Scholars Cooledge Lighting Inc. LED Lighting, Department of Psychology Corvus Energy Limited Energy Storage FPInnovations Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft Clean Energy Research Centre, Faculty of Applied Science GE Energy Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility Haworth, Inc. Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability Honeywell Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability Modern Green Development Co., Ltd. Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability National Research Council of Canada   Natural Resources Canada Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility Energy Storage Nexterra Systems Corp. Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility Powertech Labs Inc. (BC Hydro subsidiary) Energy Storage EV Charging Stations Pulse Energy Continuous Optimization SunCentral Inc. UBC Biological Sciences Complex Sustainable Development Technology Canada Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Facility 248   Appendix G Additional Organizational Charts Links to two additional organizational charts are provided below to provide context to how the governance of the UBC CLL fits into the larger picture at UBC.  • The latest version available of a high level organizational chart for UBC is available here: http://president.ubc.ca/files/2013/02/UBC-Org-Chart-2014Feb-High-Level3.pdf 17 • The latest version available of the UBC Infrastructure development organizational chart is available here: http://www.projectservices.lbs.ubc.ca/about/organization-chart/ID%20Organization%20Chart.pdf                                                      17 The position of John Robinson as “Executive Director” has now been changed to “Associate Provost, Sustainability”. 249  Appendix H Slide Deck for Unsolicited Proposals to Present Value Proposition to the Campus as a Living Lab  The following 12 slides in Figure 6.1 to Figure 6.12 are from the UBC “slide deck” that is provided to companies inquiring to participate in a UBC CLL project (Evans 2012). The company then fills in the slides to “pitch” the concept.   Figure 58: Slide deck introduction slide 250   Figure 59: Slide deck presentation outline  Figure 60: Slide deck executive summary 251   Figure 61: Slide deck opportunity positioning  Figure 62: Slide deck solution overview 252   Figure 63: Slide deck solution example  Figure 64: Slide deck program plan 253   Figure 65: Slide deck program partnerships   Figure 66: Slide deck product cost assumptions 254   Figure 67: Slide deck innovation opportunities  Figure 68: Slide deck operations and maintenance support plan 255   Figure 69: Slide deck value-added opportunities  256  Appendix I  Spider Chart Criteria As noted in Section 3.4.2.2 the criteria in the following pages are used to evaluate the potential for a new project to be part of the CLL (Evans 2013).  This criteria first goes through the deal requirements to see if it meets three basic components of the CLL: Operational need, academic interest and if there is an interested third party. Once this initial pass is completed the project is then rated on Operational Efficiency, Research Excellence, Student Learning, Community Engagement, and Sustainability.   257   Figure 70: Spider chart deal requirements 258   Figure 71: Spider chart operational efficiency criteria 259   Figure 72: Spider chart research excellence criteria 260   Figure 73: Spider chart student learning criteria  261   Figure 74: Spider chart community engagement and sustainability criteria 262  Appendix J Chronological Order of Implementation for the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability The ten year timeline of events that led to the construction and eventual occupancy of CIRS is listed in the following Table 6.23: CIRS twelve year timeline.  263  Table 41: CIRS twelve year timeline (Fedoruk & Save 2012) CIRS Twelve Year Timeline Date Item 1999 “Martha Piper asks all research units on campus to develop a strategic plan for future development.”  (UBC 2012b) 1999 “Dr. Robinson proposes an idea to create a BC showcase building.” (UBC 2012b) 2001 “Dr. John Robinson met with Peter Busby, the architect, to discuss the creation of the “greenest building in North America”. Multiple key concepts including the “living laboratory” and “accelerating sustainability” were developed during this meeting.” (UBC 2012b) 2001 Busby & Associates created the first feasibility study for CIRS on UBC Vancouver campus. (UBC 2012b) 2001 “The leadership team applied for the first Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) grant to fund the project. It was denied.” (UBC 2012b) 2001 “Busby & Associates Architects prepared a feasibility study for the first iteration of Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability, located on UBC’s Vancouver Campus.” (UBC 2012b) 2003 “A decision was made to move CIRS to a site on the Great Northern Way Campus.” (UBC 2012b) 2003-05-23 Second CFI grant submitted (UBC 2005a) 2003 A steering committee created to provide expert advice and guidance. The committee consisted of local academic institutions, government agencies and industries. (Fedoruk & Save 2012) 2003 “Other academic institutions became partners in the project: Emily Carr University of Art and Design, British Columbia Institute of Technology, Simon Fraser University.” (UBC 2012b) 2004 “The CFI and BCKDF grants were approved.” (UBC 2012b) 2004 CIRS feasibility report was completed which contained 22 design goals that guided the project. (Busby Perkins + Will 2008a) 2004-06-10 First application to Sustainable Development Technology Canada for funding. (UBC 2004a)  2004-09-30 $175K was released for the project by the UBC Board of Governors. (UBC 2004b) 2005 A Sustainable Development Technology Canada grant was secured for the photovoltaic cells. (UBC 2012b) 2005-04 A Memorandum of Understanding was signed between BC Hydro and UBC. (UBC 2005b) 2005-06-03 $110K was released for the project by the UBC Board of Governors. (UBC 2005d) 2005 $400K released  264  CIRS Twelve Year Timeline Date Item 2005 Schematic design set issued 2005 $300K issued 2005-12-08 Board 2 conditional approval (UBC 2005c) 2006-05-23 Board 2 approval finalized (UBC 2006a) 2006 Space plan issued 2006 Project put on hold 2006 Board release of $125K, bringing total release to $1,535,000 2007 Haworth becomes industry partner 2007 LOI with Honeywell and UBC 2007-12-07 Funding contract signed with Sustainable Development Technology Canada (UBC 2007) 2008 CIRS is relocated to UBC and a 500 seat auditorium is included. (Busby Perkins + Will 2008b) UBC also becomes the sole owner of the project. (UBC 2012b) 2008 Design Principals charette 2008 Board 1 approval release of $600K 2008 Board 2 approval release of $900K 2008 Water, daylighting and shading charette 2008 Energy charette 2008 Request for funding from Western Economic Diversification 2008 Conditional Board 3 approval – release of $2,200K 2008 CIRS awarded NRCan funding to describe the Integrated Design Process 2009 Signed contract with Ministry of Economic Development 2009 Tenders received within budget 2009 BOG approval to release remaining $31,323K 2009 Floor plan IFC, IFC electrical, IFC mechanical drawings submitted. (Busby Perkins + Will 2009) 2010 LOI with Modern Green (UBC 2012b) 2011 Occupancy granted  265  Appendix K Listing of Number of Data Points by Category and Process in the Campus as a Living Lab Specific Framework The following Table 6.24 provides a listing of the number of data points that were recorded by category and by process.  266  Table 42: Listed number of data points by category and process in the Campus as a Living Lab Framework Number of Data Points by Category and Process in the Campus as a Living Lab Specific Framework Category Listed Number of Data Points (1.0)  Develop Vision, Strategy and Assessment Tools 148 (1.1)  Develop, evaluate, establish, and re-evaluate vision and mission 5 (1.2)  Develop, evaluate, establish, and re-evaluate high level goals 13 (1.3)  Develop, evaluate, establish, and re-evaluate objectives 14 (1.4)  Develop, evaluate, establish and re-evaluate organizational structure, reporting, and governance 21 (1.5)  Develop, evaluate, establish and re-evaluate tools for assessing projects 41 (1.6)  Learn from others and develop ideas for improvement 54 (2.0)  Develop and Manage Business Capabilities 61 (2.1)  Develop, evaluate, establish, and re-evaluate human resource management, planning, policies, and strategies 7 (2.2)  Manage financial resources 1 (2.3)  Develop, evaluate, establish, publish, and re-evaluate process management 10 (2.4)  Develop, evaluate, establish, and re-evaluate knowledge management practices 8 (2.5)  Develop, evaluate, establish and re-evaluate metrics for post-implementation of projects 4 (2.6)  Plan meetings 31 (3.0)  Develop Opportunities 261 (3.1)  Develop, and evaluate opportunities 64 (3.2)  Evaluate risk, determine and implement risk mitigation strategies 32 (3.3)  Evaluate opportunity alignment with vision, mission, goals, and objectives 28 (3.4)  Identify requirements, objectives and resources for opportunities 56 (3.5)  Develop, and evaluate, and present business case(s) 19 (3.6)  Develop requests for information/proposals; negotiate, establish, and manage contracts 26 (3.7)  Develop, evaluate, and obtain funding 36 (4.0)  Assess the Environment 161 (4.1)  Assess internal needs, capabilities, and opportunities 89 (4.2)  Evaluate the internal economic, environmental, and social landscape 26 (4.3)  Assess external needs, capabilities, and opportunities 29 267  Number of Data Points by Category and Process in the Campus as a Living Lab Specific Framework Category Listed Number of Data Points (4.4)  Evaluate the external economic, environmental, and social landscape 17 (5.0)  Manage Researcher Opportunities 52 (5.1)  Identify projects for researchers / students looking for collaboration opportunities 18 (5.2)  Identify research champion 2 (5.3)  Identify potential candidates for research opportunity available 15 (5.4)  Engage researchers already working on projects external to Living Lab for information / updates 6 (5.5)  Engage researchers already working on projects internal to Living Lab for information / updates 11 (6.0)  Relationship Management 56 (6.1)  Develop, evaluate, and manage external Campus relationships 28 (6.2)  Develop, evaluate, and manage internal Campus relationships 14 (6.3)  Develop, evaluate, establish, and re-evaluate internal and external relationship service 14 (7.0)  Marketing and Communications 48 (7.1)  Develop, evaluate, establish, and re-evaluate marketing and communications strategy 17 (7.2)  Implement marketing and communications strategy 10 (7.3)  Share information about upcoming and past events/meetings within committee 21 (8.0)  Project Management 60 (8.1)  Receive updates and provide feedback on project scope 15 (8.2)  Receive updates and provide feedback on project schedule 17 (8.3)  Receive updates and provide feedback on project cost 10 (8.4)  Receive updates and provide feedback on project human resources 1 (8.5)  Receive updates and provide feedback on project risk 11 (8.6)  Receive updates and provide feedback on project procurement 6   

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0167308/manifest

Comment

Related Items