Husk Power Systems




Origin: Husk Power Systems is a start up company based in Bihar, India, that provides power to thousands of rural Indians using proprietary technology that has been developed by the firm that cost-effectively generates electricity using a biomass gasifier that creates fuel from rice husks, a waste product of the rice hullers that separate the husks as chaff from the rice, a staple food in the region.


Product/Services : Husk Power Systems is a for-profit company, registered in 2008. Most of
its income comes from electricity sales. HPS supplies  electricity to  the  villagers  using environment-

friendly biomass gasification technology. Electricity is supplied to only those villages that have demand of 15 kW and fall within the radius of 3 kilometers from the proposed HPS plant. The basic connection provides a household with two 15 W compact fluorescent lights and mobile phone charging throughout the period each day that the plant runs (up to eight hours in the evening). Sometimes poorer households share a basic connection and get one light each. If a household or business wants to pay more for a higher power connection, then this can be provided. A fuse blows if the customer attempts to use more than their

agreed power. Each plant serves about 500 customers, and has sufficient capacity to allow

for demand to increase. About 70% of homes within the distribution area get connected.

Customers : 

HPS customers are village house holds, local businesses as rice mills, local cinemas, photocopy shops etc. As the distribution is limited within a certain area only so customers lying within the area are served.

Geographical Spread: 

As of now HPS operations is concentrated only in rural areas of north Bihar. With over 140 plants operational covering around 100 villages in the area. HPS has planned expansions in other areas of Bihar, UP and Tamil Nadu. 

Vision: "Power to empower millions of people – from darkness to light."

Mission : "We provide reliable renewable and affordable electricity that wows the world – customers by our exemplary service and operational excellence, employees by personal growth and empowerment, and our shareholders through profitability, social impact, and environmental sustainability."

Operation and Technology: 

Sack loads of rice husk or other biomass residues are poured into the gasifier hopper every 30 to 45 minutes. The biomass burns in a restricted supply of air to give energy-rich producer gas. The gas passes through a series of filters which clean it, and it is then used as the fuel for an engine that drives the electricity generator. Electricity is distributed to customers via insulated overhead cables. The basic connection provides a household with two 15 W compact fluorescent lights and mobile phone charging throughout the period each day that the plant runs (up to eight hours in the evening). Sometimes poorer households share a basic connection and get one light each. If a household or business wants to pay more for a higher power connection, then this can be provided. A fuse blows if the customer attempts to use more than their

agreed power. Each plant serves about 500 customers, and has sufficient capacity to allow

for demand to increase. About 70% of homes within the distribution area get connected.

No of Employees : 

By 2011 HPS has 270 people trained and employed most of them at village level. Additional

temporary work created during plant construction at various villages.

No of Occupation : At plant level HPS provides employment to four people as plant operator, electrician, fuel handler and fuel collector. These people are trained prior to work and have proper income and safe work condition. At organizational level the management consists of CEO, COO, Senior Director - Training & Technical Aggregation, Director- Human Resource.

Benefits: 

By the end of March 2011, HPS had 65 fully operational plants, and a further ten under construction or starting operation. 48 plants are wholly owned and operated by HPS, and the other 17 run under some type of franchise or partnership. Plants have 500 customers on average, so about 32,500 households are supplied. With five or six members in a household, this means that about 180,000 people benefit from HPS

electricity.

Environmental Benefits: 

Surveys show that households stop using kerosene lamps when they get HPS electricity, and save 6 - 7 litres/month of kerosene on average. The total kerosene saving for the 32,500 households supplied at the end of March 2011 is therefore about 2.7 million litres per year. Kerosene savings cut greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 125 tonnes/year CO2 equivalent per plant (assessed as part of CDM certification). Thus the total saving for the 65 plants in operation at the end of March 2011 is about 8,100 tonnes/year of CO2.

Social Benefits: 

Good-quality lighting throughout the evening is a huge benefit to households. Children can study properly, housework is easier, and families can relax and socialize. Better lighting deters petty crime, and reduces the frequency of snake-bites and dog-bites.

Economic Benefits: 

Households with HPS power save typically INR 200 per month on kerosene, so their net monthly saving (after paying for their CFLs) is about INR 100 (US$2.2). With household earnings of typically US$75 to 100 per month, this frees up a significant amount of cash. Businesses benefit from better quality light and electric fans, and some new businesses have started because of the HPS supply, including photocopying shops and mini cinemas. Rice mills are paid about US$25 per tonne of rice husk, so earn an extra US$3,000 per year by supplying an HPS plant, as well as solving a disposal problem. Some mills have shared this benefit with their customers by cutting the charges that they make for milling.

Future Prospects: 

HPS aims to continue its rapid growth, with a target of 2,014 operating plants by the end of

2014. Recent investment is supporting the immediate expansion, and HPS is also working

to obtain carbon finance and expand its franchising operations, to enable further growth.

A key factor in the success of HPS is its emphasis on staff training and strict operating

procedures, at village level and right through its organisational structure. The main

challenge for achieving growth is providing training to the 9,000 or more people that will

be needed to operate over 2,000 plants to the same level of performance. HPS is planning to

build a training centre, and also provide some training by distance learning.

The basic technology and plant operation are not expected to change, but the R&D and

monitoring that HPS undertake will lead to technical and operational improvement and

bring down costs. Current ideas under development and testing include programmable

pre-payment meters, char removal systems that cut water use, and automated plant

monitoring. Other ways of adding value to char are also under investigation.

Rice husk is a plentiful resource in India and many other countries, since about 25% of the

weight of the dried paddy is husk. Bihar alone produces three million tonnes/year of paddy,

which could provide sufficient husk to supply electricity to three million households. HPS

technology could therefore be used in many other rice-producing areas, as well as places

with other biomass residues.

  The Three Monk Story

Before exploring the three monk story lets us explore the two forms of innovation, continuous and drastic or rather drastic and continuous.

In his Theory of Economic Development, Schumpeter (1934) presented the working of a capitalistic economy as an evolutionary process, where the business cycle results from the introduction and integration of innovations. The cycle is initiated, or triggered, by a major innovation or a drastic innovation. The initial innovation (or cluster of such innovations) is then followed by a massive diffusion of smaller innovations that exploit directly or indirectly the profit potential “announced” by the initial radical change such innovations can be termed as continuous innovations. These further adjustments typically take place during the expansion of activity when uncertainty is reduced. When the novelty is exhausted the economic system tends toward a new equilibrium position with a higher level of welfare than the previous one. The industrial transformation that takes place during the cycle encourages firms to use new forms of production technologies, organizational structures, etc., and ill-adapted firms are eliminated.

Rosenberg (1976, 1982) expressed the composition of the two types of innovation in several of his path-breaking works. Although he did not deny the contribution of major innovation to economic development and growth, he claimed that revolutionary innovation is in fact materialized through a sequence of gradual and cumulative development steps. He presented a famous example of the car industry to argue that, although the private automobile was certainly one of the great driving forces of the industrialization in the early 20^th century, it was not really (economically) present when few mechanical toys (the first automobiles) terrified horses in the countryside. The revolution was only effective once Ford’s chain production reduced costs and prices of car manufacture and made the automobile available to millions, gas stations sprung up along the highways and the whole suburban lifestyle developed.

In the three monk cartoon three methods were introduced to fetch water from the river downhill to the monastery uphill.

Method 1 : In this method one monk goes downhill with two bucket at two sides of a stick, the tool arrangement looks something like below with monk being represented by the arrow.

 

In this approach one monk goes downhill with this arrangement, fetches the water and climbs up. So each time a monk carries two bucket of water down as well as uphill. Let the effort in this case be ‘E’.

Method 2 : In this method two monks go down the hill with one bucket by holding the bucket hung in the middle of the stick at the two ends, the tool arrangement looks something like below.

 

Where the arrows represents the monks. In this arrangement each monk share the effort of lifting one bucket equally. So definitely it is an improvement over the previous method. So if E’ be the effort of a monk in this method then we can say

E’ = E/4

As only one bucket is moved in this arrangement at a time and the effort is shared in between.

Method 3: In this method a system of pulley and rope was used by the monks to fetch the water. The method involved all three of them. The arrangement can be roughly drawn as below

             




                                                                                                                     

Where M represents the Monastery. In this arrangement one monk fetches the water from the river and attaches the bucket to the rope. Second monk then pulls the rope up the hill and de attaches the bucket from the rope, the third monk then takes the bucket to the monastery empties it and returns with an empty bucket to monk 2. Due to inclusion of pulley the effort put in by any of the monks is reduced significantly than any of the three methods. So if E’’ represents the effort put in by either of the monks then we can say

E’’ < E’ < E

Analysis:

In light of drastic vs. continuous innovation we can evaluate three methods as.

Method 1: Method 1 being the initial state of the economy where an innovation exists and is being exploited. In this particular case the innovation being the stick tool used by the monk to fetch the water. In method 1 the  tool enables the monk to carry 2 buckets of water at a time.
 By simple physics we can say that if W be the weight of two buckets then the monk represented by the arrow will have to apply 2W effort to hold the tool. If d is the distance then in each round total work done by the worker/monk WD = 2Wd  Besides this tool is useful only for one monk/worker as only one can work using this at a time.

Method 2 represents a gradual or continuous innovation as this method is a fine refinement of method 1 only where the tool is modified a bit to reduce the effort. The improvement of this over previous method is in making the tool usable for two workers at a time.
Again if W is the weight of the bucket then each monks have to apply W/2 effort to hold the tool. If d is the total distance then in each round total work done by any of the worker is WD = Wd/2, which is an improvement as compared to previous method. Also with this tool two workers can work at a time so an increase in utilization.


Method 3 on the other hand side is a path break from both the existing methods and hence is a drastic innovation. In method 3 the process is completely changed with introduction of new methods and tools. Method 3 drastically reduces the effort put in by the monks in the work.

Method 3 is significantly different from the two previous methods. 

Firstly in this method three workers/monks are involved so better utilization. 

Secondly looking from the effort perspective it can be observed that the effort also varies from worker to worker. Considering the worker downhill let's us say W1, his work is to fetch water from the river and hook the bucket to the rope, so let us say the distance moved by worker is d' (d' << d) the work done W1D = Wd'. Worker uphill pulling the rope say W2 will apply W/2 effort to pull the bucket because of the pulley system. So the work done by him is W2D = Wd''/2 again d'' < d, as he just have to pull the bucket uphill not carry it into the monastery. For worker 3 W3 the work is to carry the filled bucket from W2 to the monastery, so work done by him is W3D = Wd''' again d''' << d as the distance between W2 and monastery is quite less then the  total distance between river and monastery. 

Thirdly in this model work can be assigned based on workers' capabilities i.e. difficult work can be given to more capable worker as in this case W2 is assigned little difficult work.

Ankur Shree

Roll: 220, IM : 19

Section: ‘A’

 Decision Making and Creative problem solving:

So what do we mean by problem solving and decision making and how are they related to one another?

Problem Solving: Is a set of activities designed to analyze a situation systematically and generate, implement and evaluate solutions.

Decision making: Is a mechanism for making choices at each steps of the problem solving process.

Decision making is part of problem solving and decision making occurs at every step of the problem-solving process.

Creative problem solving – Mediocre problem solving

And comes another jargon “Creative problem solving”. So what is this Creative problem solving?

Well creative problem solving is the mental process of creating a solution to a problem. It is special form of problem solving in which the solution is independently created rather than learned with assistance. So obviously Creative problem solving Always Involves “Creativity”.

On contarary the approach to problem solving where solution is reached with assistance of existing practices, principles or other assistances can be termed as mediocre problem solving.

Clearly what this category of problem solving lacks is “Creativity”.

To qualify as creative problem solving the solution must aeither have value, clearly solve the stated problem, or be appreciated by someone for whome the solution improves.

Following a mediocre problem solving insists a solution most of time with just one constraint it being mediocre i.e. Nothing new.

Types of Decision Making:

1. Individual Decision Vs Group Decision making: Decision making without group's input or a decision made regardless of the groups' opinion is naturally and individual decision. This is the more tradiational decision making approach and can work effictively for a manager when group's input is not required or desired.

On the other hand side group decision making involves either consennsus or consultation amongst the group members. Both methods requires the group's participation and call for a manager who respects the opinions and input of the group in the decision making process.

2. Rational Decision making : The rational decision making model is a process for making logically sound decisions. This multi-step model aims to be logical and follow the orderly path from problem identification through solution. Steps of rational decision making can be written as :

1. Verify, define and detail the problem
2. Generate all possible solutions
3. Generate objective assessment criteria
4. Choose the best solution generated.
5. Implement the preferred alternative.
6. Monitor and evaluate outcomes and results.
7. Feedback

3. Participative Decision Making – Unilateral decision making : Autocratic leaders make their own decisions while participative leaders involve others in making decisions. Supposedly good leaders vary their decision making style according to the situation. They make decisions unilaterally or use degree if participation as appropriate. A participative style should be used whenever employee commitement is required. Unilateral decision must be made on occasion, especially when time is short.

Bounded Rationality (BR) : Bounded rationality is the idea that in decision making, rationality of individuals is limited by the information they have, the congnitive limitations of their minds,, and the finite amount of time they have to make the decision.

Bounded rationality is a school of thought about decision making that developed from dissatisfaction with the “comprehensively rational” economic and decision theory model of choice. Those models assume that preferences that decision makers maximize their net benefits or utilities by choosing the alternative that yeilds the highest level of benefits. A major implication of the approach is that behavior is determined by mix of incentives facing the decision maker. A second implication is that behavior is determined by the mix of incentives facing the decision maker.

Problems with unbounded rationality:

1. Decision maker is a satisficer : i.e one seeking a satisfactory solution rather than optimal one.
2. Human minds have limited time and cognitive ablities to make optimal choices.

Japnes Ringi system :

The ringi system is a collective process of decision making by circular letter (ringisho) that is known to be specific to large bureaucratic organizations and companies in Japan. The ringi system of sharing authority is a practice that dates back to the Tokugawa shogunate during the Edo period (1600/1603–1868). A proposal is initiated at the middle or lower level of management. It then takes the form of a written proposal that is circulated among the interested parties through the organizational hierarchies, as well as at the divisional and corporate levels for consultation, comment, and approval. After each individual involved has signified agreement by stamping a personal seal (hanko) on the document, it is returned to the original person in charge for implementation. From this process, a final decision emerges that will be enacted by the authority of the organization or company. This process is called ringiseido (request for decision system), which emphasizes the importance the Japanese place on group decisions. In negotiations, it means that the confidence of the entire group will have to be reached. In the end, the decision can be implemented quickly and with full cooperation because it already has unanimous support.

Ankur Shree

IM – 19

Roll : 220 Sec A

The Valley Crossing Problem 

Problem: There are some people who have to cross a valley. They are having a long pole with them. Suggest the ways by which they can cross the valley.

Solutions:

1.       The obvious one J Put the pole on the valley and let all men cross. This solution involves equal risk for each members (assuming none is an acrobat expertJ) so looks fair and most obvious.

2.       The Leap of Faith: As the name says this solution requires each member to have trust in the solution or have full understanding of the solution so that none have any doubt.

Basic pre-requisites

a)      Minimum no of people : 3

b)      Width of the valley shall be at max 2 complete steps.

c)       Length of pole is sufficiently greater.

d)      Gap between the people is greater than or equal to the valley width.

Solution goes as:

Let L (n) and R (n) denotes the left and right leg of the peoples, let orange represent one leg of person hanging and red represent person hanging fully.

Step 1:

L(3)L(2)L(1)  

R(3)R(2)R(1)

Step 2:

L(3)L(2)                 L(1)

R(3)R(2)R(1)

Step 3:

L(3)L(2)                 L(1)

R(3)R(2)                R(1)

Step 4:

L(3)                        L(2)                        L(1)

R(3)R(2)                 R(1)

Step5:

L(3)                        L(2)                        L(1)

R(3)                        R(2)                        R(1)

Step 6:

       L(3)                        L(2)L(1)

R(3)                        R(2)                        R(1)

Step 7:

       L(3)                        L(2)L(1)

       R(3)                        R(2)R(1)

Step 8:

                                                                L(3)L(2)L(1)

                               R(3)                        R(2)R(1)

Step 9:

                                                                L(3)L(2)L(1)

                                                                R(3)R(2)R(1)

Interpretations:

1.       The “No boss model” : Assuming that the people have one common goal to cross the valley and there is no boss or authority involved then the solution has following features:

a)      Interdependent role: Each individual relies upon others for achieving the common goal for the group. The goal in this case being crossing the valley. Success of each individual depends not only upon his/her efforts but also on the efforts put in by the other members of the group. So each individual of the group being equally responsible for success/failure of the group.

b)       Cohesiveness: Each member has to work as a team with all other members to attain the common objective. In this case it is the team work which is need and not the individual excellence i.e. having a long/high jumper in the group might help but will not improve his/her chance either as jumping the valley with a steel pole might not be a wise idea JBest result will come only when each one of the group sticks to the plan

c)       Matrix structure: The present task model requires team work and interdependence so all are equals and hence anyone can command anyone, no hierarchy exists no single bell rings each one listens to each other. So if the group has got a Judge, a thief and a manager then the thief can command the Judge and manager will have to adhere to the group objectives.

  Such systems result into systems of excellence as each member strives for one common goal which is the group goal. Even though the group goals may me risker but the understanding being risk being risk and opportunity being same for all.

Had there being a central command which would have drawn such a plan priory and explained it to the set of people and asked the group to perform the task; there would have being a fair amount of suspicion amongst the group members. And the group might be just a mediocre collection of highly talented individuals.

Ankur Shree
Nitie IM-19
Roll: 220