Project Manager - Should You Really BE THE CHANGE?

I would love to see case studies that document the concept as we are learning that the carbon footprint of most capital intensive green technology investments, once production costs are included in a TCG (total cost of green) can be much larger than the 10 or even 20 year paybacks, at least in energy related initiatives like wind power.

Certainly if the value to the enterprise is there, green is the way to go. Let's just make sure there is a TRUE and sustainable value is acheivable and not frought with unintended consequences (eg. what to do with the mercury in the new engery efficient light bulbs, etc.)

Posted: Oct 19, 2009 6:16 PM

I just don't buy the premise about climate change or global warming, whichever you choose. While I believe we all should be good stewards, the primary purpose of the project is NOT sustainability; it's the functional purpose of the product that the project is supposed to deliver. If the customer has sustainability built into the requirements and has budgeted for it, then so be it. My job as PM or project engineer is to do the programmatics and deliver accordingly.

Posted: Oct 19, 2009 7:28 PM

It's a matter of definition. If we mean that the PM should consider and attempt to minimize long-term sustainment costs, then of course all projects should at least address those considerations. In many cases it doesn't cost any more to do things sustainably than not, if you plan it in from the beginning; on the other hand, in many cases the claims of either true greenness and/or ROI are completely bogus. To the extent that "going green" means doing things just because they are approved for this week by the high priests of the environmental movement, then it's a matter of whether the customer values it enough to pay for it. If it has publicity value or if it just makes the customer feel good about themselves, whatever, that's the customer's call as long as they are paying for it. I do not believe that the project manager should be espousing or being the point person for any ideology or idolatry, except of course for the trinity of the iron triangle.

Posted: Oct 19, 2009 7:58 PM

I like Dick''s comments and really liked what Douglas had to say. Dick''s point of view (that I share) is recently backed up with documented, measured and published report by Richard Lindzen of MIT regarding the truth on CO2 emissions in relation to the "global warming" hysteria. That aside, Douglas hit it right on the head. The favored approach varies so quickly, factoring in sustainability or "green" introduces a set of risks that are too widely variable to actually plan around. The additional danger is that today''s hero in the "green" movement is tomorrow''s villain because the wind shifts (no pun intended) and the "high priests of the environmental movement" have decided upon a new vogue.

On any project, the PM has a set of tools and resources to deliver the product. If he/she is so fortunate to be involved from the requirements stage, he/she must act with the best interest of the company in mind and pull from every area that contributes to the ROI. As Douglas noted, that largely depends upon the customer''s aim and the value they see from "going green". If I were in that position, I would very much like to understand what is meant by the terms "green" and "sustainable" before advising. These buzzwords are thrown around so carelessly, one is left with a fuzzy definition at best. Pressing to know what terms mean causes all parties to consider what they mean, the impact upon the company and allows the whole team to understand and more effectively work together.

Posted: Oct 19, 2009 8:15 PM

I believe there is great value in considering the total lifecycle cost as proposed by the sustainable movement. However this is hard to do unless you are making an effort in thinking these things through and training yourself to pay attention to these details.
In many cases choices need to be made between very similar solutions. In these cases sustainability arguments can spread the field. This attitude will also help to think outside the box of the project scope. How many "successfull" project have you done where the final results did not deliver the intended benefits? I think considering the wider implications, of which natural and financial sustainability are only 2 aspects, may help choose better, without necessarily hurting the bottom line.

Posted: Oct 19, 2009 8:57 PM

I agree totally with all I read above. To me, if I am interpreting it correctly, it is just plain common sense. Project Managers need to think very broadly and thoroughly about the problem their project is meant to solve, and about the process of implementing the project. Of course, time is always a constraint, but that is what prioritization is about. On virtually every project, we can at least rapidly identify the low-lying "sustainability fruit", if there is any, and it is our responsibilty to do so. All that really takes is to care.

____________________________

John Reiling, PMP

Project Management Training Online

Tech Training Online

PMcrunch.com


Posted: Oct 19, 2009 9:15 PM

Elizabeth Harrin (pm4girls.com) was also part of the Orlando interview with Greg B. Here is a quote from a recent posting on her blog that I think offers a slightly different take on the topic and Greg's position...

The next ah-ha moment appears to be green project management. “Project managers are not only going to be held responsible for maintaining an ethical supply chain, they’re going to have to be vigilant,” Greg says. “For organisation sustainability you have to be a better global citizen.” Being an ethical, green project manager is the next trend. You can’t wait for someone to give you a checklist of what to do to ensure your project is green – you need to be forward thinking and start doing it now. “Cloud computing is the big buzz,” Greg adds. You need to be ethical when you buy space in the cloud. “Where is it hosted?” It’s not just sweat shops for products any longer: the ethical supply chain affects all parts of the project.

Posted: Oct 19, 2009 10:50 PM

Dave-



Thanks for asking me to comment - this one is very interesting. When I started reading I was initially very concerned with what appeared to be Mr. Balestrero''''s position on sustainability. As PMs, we are charged with many responsibilities, but trying to incorporate environmental sustainability or ''''greeness'''' into our projects as what sounded like a #1 priority should not be on the list. How that can - or even should - be incorporated into a project has to depend to a great degree on several things including requirements, the business processes of the client, the industry, and the budget.



I was much more comfortable with the direction it was heading after you were able to get further clarification from Mr. Balestrero. I agree with you - it is our responsibility as PMs, as it is everyone''''s responsibility, to try to incorporate environmental sustainability actions and practices into what we do in our professional and daily lives. To keep these actions and practices in mind when leading projects just makes good sense for our organizations, for our client''''s organizations and for the environment.



Of course, how much sustainability - if any - can be incorporated into a given project is going to depend on the customer''''s willingness to pay for it. But we as PMs can take the initiative to work on incorporating these practices into what we do and how we look to implement projects because as you said - if we don''''t, chances are no one else will. In my experience, business analysts are another key resource that can often be good change agents and can work hand-in-hand with PMs to incorporate these changes as they often have their finger on the client''''s pulse in terms of requirements (not budget) and can help drive change.



Great article Dave...thanks for sharing.

--------

Brad Egeland

IT/Project Management Consultant

email: [email protected]

website: www.bradegeland.com

Project Mgmt articles: www.pmtips.net/author/brad/


Posted: Oct 19, 2009 11:42 PM

Dave,

I want to echo Brad... this sounded scarier before your follow up questions, but I still think it is squishy. I also think we can bring the global warning skeptics on board with a little clarity.

The project manager is responsible for assuring that the needs/desires of ALL potential stake holders are CONSIDERED. The project's sponsors get to decide which stakeholder needs are part of the project. This is not turning PMs into environmentalists - it is encouraging them to think of the broad spectrum of constituencies that they might be asked to serve. Asking the sponsors if they want to consider the carbon footprint of a project is good business, because if you fail to ask and the sponsors care later, you have not represented their needs. You don't have to have an opinion about whether the carbon footprint is valid science - we don't get to question the sponsor's goals. Our job is to support informed decision making.

Thanks for following up... The initial comments sounded like they were coming from left field. They still are a bit, but your clarification helps me understand this in the context of something that makes sense (to me, anyway).

Posted: Oct 20, 2009 4:04 AM

Thanks Dave for this interesting discussion.
Let me comment a sentence from your initial topic: "Visionary organizations are shifting from a social responsibility approach of being generous to a global sustainability approach of being genuine."
We can write many books on "being generous" but the key is in "being genuine" that means also being honest, simple, understandable, transparent and so on.
Project managers are executors of strategies imposed by politics and corportate managers, so they must be compliant, but politics are more responsibile. What we can do is very simple: instead of continue to substain poors giving them "some fish", we MUST teach them to fish, so we can pass from words to facts. Our responsibility is to represent this scenario to our sponsor before accepting to manage their projects, and then act. But not always we can do it. So, we spent our time in the global recital.
Please, someone can explain me the diffence between "social responsibility approach" versus "global sustainability approach" ? Does we are yet playing with words ? Best regards.

Posted: Oct 20, 2009 5:15 AM

Project Management has become the universal cornerstone of accomplishment for so many industries that placing the burden of responsibility on their role should not be an unusual next step. Examine the levels of employment and job titles for many companies and pair them off with duties and responsibilities and you will see the relationship "Project Management" plays in "Green" as in all project aspects and projects. What I am saying is companies do not take advise easily without first being sold on the concept. Any member of their leadership team who takes control of providing this information becomes the PM for the company, and throughout the process a PM becomes the key to delivery. Therefore, in the process for project delivery the PM does become recognized as a key person in following through with the project's "Green Concept", and leads the construction in their attempt to achieve these "Green" goals. Project Manager's is many sectors of business will lead the way.

Posted: Oct 20, 2009 5:52 AM

I think the word "sustainability" is being used in a very narrow viewpoint. A few points:- Whether or not a person believes in global warming, climate change or whatever the latest buzzwords are about the ecology and the earth's environment, we all have a responsibility to do what we can to reduce pollution, reduce the amount of waste, and preserve our natural resources. It just makes sense to find ways to clean up the environment and everyone, regardless of position in a company, political office, political party, or place in society, can do something to contribute to the movement toward a cleaner, greener earth.

Regarding sustainability: From a project manager perspective, sustainability,should, in part, be related to how an organization will continue to function in tough economic times, find ways to sustain current customer satisfaction levels, maintain a positive incoming cash flow, reduce costs, maintain positive margins when comparing results with competitors, and how to grow the business. Sustainability should be related to plans that minimize layoffs and cutbacks and create a positive (at least hopeful) attitude among empoyees and project teams that keep them motivated to develop creative ways to save money while keeping customers satisfied. Sustainability should be directly connected to what Cashman refers to as "authentic leadership." Leaders who have values and respect the values of others and look for the projects that will add value to the organization in the short and long term. Sustainability shoud be related to, even renamed "sustainable leadership," where, as the quote says " leaders do the right things."

Sustainability is more than just reducing the carbon footprint. It means getting away from the short term ego trips and shortsighted, self viewing prespectives of what we lossely refer to as today's leaders.

True sustainability includes a vision of a successful organization that is doing the right things for the environment, the employees, the customers, and soiciety. Sounds like a pipe dream or an idealist but if we don't start seeing some true and authentic leadership instead of a lot of rhetoric, sustainability is just another corporate buzz word that will soon be replaced by the next new word or phrase.

Posted: Oct 20, 2009 9:59 AM

I think that's a very interesting and valid perspective Frank. I doubt anyone could argue with it if it were PMI's position on sustainability (I think a lot of that is already reflected or implied in the ethical code of conduct), but I think what Greg is talking about is more environmentally focused. I've dropped him a note, asking him to read this posting - just so he has direct, unvarnished input from a broad range of PMs. Hopefully each comment will give him a "little something more" to consider as he further refines his position on the subject.

Posted: Oct 20, 2009 10:10 AM

We ear a lot of Sales people arguing that their application will save a lot of money, but refusing to compute any ROI. And they are true, as, during the project implementation period, we must have to face the investment extra-cost without savings, and as, when finished, main stakeholders will find lots of arguments not to benefit from possible savings. Mid Managers will hardly agree to reduce their reports, and Business Units Managers will prefer to use the new system''s opportunities to develop and secure the business than to keep operating as previously and benefit from possible "iso-function" savings.


Sustainability must be appoached the same way, in order to consider that, between several options, the best would be the one not only able to reach the target efficiently, but also able to preserve future agility in a fluctuating environment and improve the shareable value created by the project.


I remember the implementation of a market place for an E&C large company. The initial target was to be more efficient in procurement negotiation, expecting to save approx. 5%. Buyers were not motivated to assist as they considered the system will compete with their own skills. We proposed to change the mind and the project definition: have a global view on the needs for the next months in order to standardize and turn "one shot" manufacturing components into partnership and industrial, repetitive, and better quality production. The savings at the supplier''s were more than 30% and, happy to have series'' products sellable on the market, they agreed to share a part of the benefit: far from the initial 5%, with better quality, maintainability, and good win-win partnership instead of hard negotiations!.


Posted: Oct 20, 2009 10:54 AM

There really ought to be a better word than sustainability which in its pure form has more to do with the use and care of natural resources. However, I do think that we as project managers should think about environmental concerns while planning projects. It is not the foremost goal in most projects, but it should be there as a concern, a constraint or in some cases a risk. This could be as simple as adding specific stakeholders and/or their needs and concerns to the project planning, or asking questions about sourcing equipment, supplies and hardware, to as complicated as adding a section to the WBS for cleanup and consideration given to the potential for recycling the old or removed material or hardware.

-
Questions about whether to buy power smart, or energy star rated appliances should be asked. Questions about what will happen to the de-commissioned computers or the removed construction material should asked. A PM should at least ensure that ‘sustainable’, environmentally friendly options are presented to the client. These are more than a PR issue, I think these are moral issues.


Posted: Oct 20, 2009 1:39 PM

I admire Mr. Balestrero's initiative in fostering this very worthwhile goal. That being said, I think it underscores a basic problem with PMI as a professional organization - it's view and expectation of the project management profession.

Project Management is critical in influencing the potential success of projects - which includes higher-level aspirations such as sustainability. But project management will always be limited in its ability to ensure this success because I believe project success is far more dependent on sound Project and Portfolio Management (PPM) and associated Project Governance. In fact, that is where any additional or residual project goals and objectives should be considered - in PPM processes and the resulting project decisions.

Project Managers could easily remind folks of the need for sustainability, but few enterprises and organizations are going to indulge or even tolerate Project Managers that want to take pause to consider increasing the scope, cost or schedule of a project - because PMI advocates fostering sustainability.

Steve Romero, IT Governance Evangelist
http://community.ca.com/blogs/theitgovernanceevangelist/

Posted: Oct 20, 2009 3:49 PM

Again, I reject the premise regarding humans' involvement in causing climate change. It's become a very flexible religion in that it was human-caused global warming and when the "evidence" started to show otherwise, the high-priests commandeered "climate change" as the basis of their faith. If I'm engineering the requirements way before the project starts, I'll look for the most economical and stewardship-oriented approach that makes the most sense; once the requirements are initially done, I'll put together the project to implement them.

Life-cycle considerations are part of the overall strategy, not necessarily the concern of the immediate project. The life-cycle is a series of projects, from conception to implementation and delivery to decommissioning to dismantling to disposal. Each gets planned and engineered based on the needs and desires of the time of the project. Disposal options when a project begins may be entirely different from when it actually comes time to dispose of the product; the planning of the project should take into consideration the "best" options when that time arises.

Before I'd start using the term "morality" when it comes to all of this, I'd like to hear what that means. It's just too important to me to put that tag on people and projects.

Posted: Oct 20, 2009 4:21 PM

Dave Samuel sent me message below in email and ok''d my copying it here. I thought he added a different perspective to the conversation -

Dave-

So as I sit here (on the bench due to downsizing), it strikes me that this blog entry goes to the heart of a subject near and dear to the hearts of my wife and I. With the possible exception of "Adoption", the topic of "sustainability in project management" is this single greatest influence on how I do business.

Though I lack the LEED, CPMEE or other such certification, I have been a regular attendee at conferences like The Green Festival in San Francisco, which supports and endorses green building and green living.

I believe the future of Project Management intersects with the future of the planet. Project management, in all respects, MUST incorporate sustainability at all levels of planning and execution. I believe it is a moral obligation for project managers to incorporate sustainability - not to do so is to sell the profession short. Not to do so is to sell humanity short.

I am not sure what you are looking for in terms of comment, but I might suggest that an on-going feature on Gantthead.com that examines sustainability in Project Management would be of significant value to mane, and help place Gantthead at the forefront of a coming Project Management evolution.

All the Best!!


Dave Samuel

Posted: Oct 20, 2009 4:43 PM

PMI's 'Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct' has been already mentioned above. I really feel that if the PMI wants to start getting things done towards promoting a focus on sustainability, it could really do worse than adding explicit comments about it on that Code. For a start it would get thousands of PMPs and PMP candidates to start thinking about it at the same level than Respect, Fairness or Honesty. It's not about believing (or realising) Global Warming is here. It's about doing the right things when possible, and having a certain attitude towards sustainability issues. Of course we'll need more substantial actions, but if I was putting together a big plan on that topic, I'd say that updating the Code could be a 'Quick Win'.

Posted: Oct 20, 2009 5:22 PM

Dave,

An interesting question you pose. At the end of the day, if I as project manager (or human on the planet) don''t start to take action, who will? If I wait for others, how long will I have to wait? The quote "I am the change I want to see in the world" comes to mind.

Now, does this mean I have to change the scope of project''s product? It might. Maybe there are things that could be done differently to ensure the product of my project is more sustainable one it has been produced. I may or maynot have control over that. However, I often do have control over the scope of my project. I could look to change that scope to ensure a more sustainable project process. For example, I approach my project activities from a more earth-friendly vantage point. Maybe it is as simple as posing the question in a team meeting or customer meeting. You might be suprised at the response.

It is like the person who continually says "Exercise? I just don''t have time." Make time. Make it a priority on your list of things to do. It is your life. Take action.

:O)

Craig




Posted: Oct 20, 2009 9:55 PM