With ProjectManagement.com’s June theme of “sustainability,” it’s perfectly understandable that many of the contributions are going to be centered on environmental issues, and that’s okay. I have absolutely no intention of challenging those ideas. That approach, however, is not how I see this topic. Instead, I want to show how “sustainability” ought to be achieved within the management science structure of Project Management.
But first, what, exactly, are we talking about when we discuss “sustainability?” In the management sense, it means to construct and maintain a business model that continues to earn a profit over the long-term. To the extent that such an organization improves the lives of not only its customers, shareholders and employees, but also the community around it is certainly a plus. But even the most community-friendly company can’t go on for long if it fails to turn a profit, meaning, definitionally, it is not sustainable. To be sure, many organizations developed and kept in place business models with serious flaws, and somehow stayed afloat, while others executed relatively pathology-free models, but failed nevertheless. I think it’s fair to assert, however, that central to “sustainable” management, Project or otherwise, is to make the decisions that keep the organization viable over the long term.
Okay, so how does one go about doing that? It occurs to me that this is right down PM’s alley, in that organizations only make a profit in a free-market economy if they have customers willing to give them money in exchange for their goods and services. And this is where PM assumes its front-and-center role, in that it’s PM’s techniques and approaches that are centered on monitoring cost and schedule performance against a defined scope baseline, all three of which are typically set by the customer, and all three are germane to PM.
Now, I understand that such an assertion runs contrary to the narrative propagated by our friends, the accountants, and taught in business schools across the land, that the point of all management is to increase shareholder wealth, but even here an insight presents itself. Even the Asset Managers will maintain a managerial duty to shareholders, not stakeholders. The latter category may attempt to assert veto status over the project’s completion, or even existence, but the fact is that, again, in a free-market economy, a contract between a client and the organization executing the project legally binds those two entities alone, assuming, of course, that the project is carried out consistent with applicable laws. This is true even when outside stakeholders attempt to lay claim to some moral or intellectual high ground. If the project’s scope is perfectly legal, as are the methods and resources used to attain its completion, then no third parties should have a say in whether or not the project ought to proceed to completion. To try and manage otherwise would be to subject one’s Project Team to the business world equivalent of the “hecklers’ veto,” essentially placing at significant risk any but the most anodyne projects from the outset.
Of course, I am aware that such assertions run directly contrary to my second-favorite target of criticism (after risk managers), the Communications Managers, who often maintain that all stakeholders should have a say in the technical direction and/or implementation strategy of projects. But beyond the validity of the cliché that too many cooks spoil the broth, it’s been my experience that allowing self-identified experts or stakeholders to add requirements or scope that can hinder (or even prevent) a given project from being executed on-time, on-budget is almost always a bad idea. Think about it: do these additional stakeholders have anything to lose if the project fails to come in on-time, on-budget? Indeed, in many instances these have something to gain from your project failing to come to a successful completion, if nothing else for the sense of empowerment that comes from thwarting an effort they perceive to be immoral or unethical. Again, I’m not even going to address the basis for determining whether or not a given project really is immoral or unethical – I’m just saying that, from a purely management science point of view, improving one’s PM technique can only have one rational goal, and that’s to improve the rate at which your projects come to a successful conclusion, thereby enriching the lives of your Project Team, your organization, your customer(s), and even the macro economy. Imagine how the business world would improve if we were to see a dramatic decline in the staggering percentage of failed projects documented in the Forbes article “3 Main Reasons Why Big Technology Projects Fail – & Why Many Companies Should Just Never Do Them.”[i]
For these reasons (among others), I have no problem arguing that the path to sustainability runs through PM.
[i] Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveandriole/2021/03/25/3-main-reasons-why-big-technology-projects-fail---why-many-companies-should-just-never-do-them/ on 9 June 2025, 19:42 MDT.
Community Champion
