People, Planet, Profits & Projects

Following up on my last post (You’ve Come A Long Way, Babushka”), this post is meant to be an example of how the concept of Systems Thinking fits into the intersection of project management and sustainability, and how becoming adept at this intersection can advance you from project manager to project leader.

Unfortunately, there are resplendent examples.  The Flint, Michigan water supply cutover, the Aral Sea Desiccation, the Columbia Gas explosions in Massachusetts’ Merrimack Valley, and Volkswagen’s “dieselgate” are just a few.  We may explore some of them in future posts.

This post focuses on the Bura Irrigation and Settlement Project in Kenya, both in its original deployment and (luckily) in a revamped version of the project.  See maps below for orientation.

Background

The original Bura Irrigation and Settlement Project, launched in 1977, aimed to develop approximately 6,700 hectares of irrigated land and settle around 5,150 landless families. Despite being completed within its revised timelines and budget constraints, the project faced numerous challenges.

• Cost Overruns: Per-family costs escalated from an estimated $17,500 to $55,000, setting a record for World Bank-funded projects at the time.
• Reduced Scope: Due to funding constraints, the project's scale was reduced from the planned 6,700 hectares to about 2,500 hectares, even though infrastructure for the larger area was completed.
• Operational Challenges: The scheme suffered from unreliable water supply, pest infestations, and poor soil quality, leading to low agricultural yields.
• Economic Viability: The project's economic rate of return was negative, with annual operating and maintenance costs exceeding the benefits. Government subsidies amounted to about $1,000 per settler annually.
• Social Impact: Many settlers abandoned the scheme due to poor living conditions and lack of income, leading to the project's near-collapse by the early 1990s.

Note: sources for this information are listed at the end of this post.

Systems Thinking Lessons from the Bura Irrigation Settlement Project

Had the planners of the Bura Irrigation Settlement Project adopted a systems thinking approach, many of the project’s adverse outcomes—economic inefficiency, social distress, and ecological degradation—could have been anticipated and mitigated. A key failure was the lack of integration across subsystems: the project emphasized rapid irrigation infrastructure and settlement development without accounting for the interdependencies between environmental sustainability, social well-being, and long-term economic viability.  This was failure to understand the interrelationships of these elements. For example, neglecting to implement fuelwood plantations led settlers to overexploit nearby forests, contributing not only to biodiversity loss but also to an unsustainable fuel source that burdened household labor and undercut food production efforts.

Moreover, health and social dynamics were largely ignored in the initial project logic.  For example, the perspective of the farmers was largely ignored.  Settling diverse communities without robust health infrastructure led to the spread of diseases like malaria and schistosomiasis, weakening labor productivity and increasing mortality—factors that directly impacted agricultural output and economic returns. Simultaneously, environmental consequences such as soil erosion from premature land clearing, contamination of the Tana River from biocide runoff, and disruption of wildlife corridors not only damaged the ecosystem but incurred hidden long-term costs that drained the already struggling economic model.

Systems thinking would have required the planners to recognize that success in one domain—such as infrastructure delivery—cannot offset failures in others. With systems thinking in mind, they could have incorporated robust stakeholder input, interagency coordination, and proactive environmental and social safeguards, the Bura project could have achieved more resilient and equitable outcomes. Instead, its singular focus on output metrics (hectares cultivated, families settled) over outcomes (sustainable livelihoods, environmental health) yielded biased perspectives and turned what was meant to be a flagship development initiative into a cautionary tale.

The planners of the Bura Irrigation Settlement Project were hindered from applying systems thinking by a combination of institutional, political, cognitive, and practical barriers—many of which are common in large-scale development efforts, especially those led by multi-agency, multi-national partnerships.

Why Systems Thinking Was Absent in the Bura Irrigation Project

The planners of the Bura Irrigation Settlement Project were hindered from applying systems thinking by a combination of institutional, political, cognitive, and practical barriers—many of which are common in large-scale development efforts, especially those led by multi-agency, multi-national partnerships.

1. Overvaluing only certain distinctions

The project was designed around visible, measurable indicators of success: number of hectares cultivated, number of settler families installed, irrigation canals completed, and cotton yields. This output-driven mindset—often reinforced by donor requirements—encouraged a narrow focus on infrastructure delivery and immediate agricultural productivity. Intangible or longer-term systemic indicators like environmental degradation, health dynamics, and social cohesion were sidelined or not measured at all.

2. Political and Donor Pressures

With financial support from the World Bank, and others, there was significant political pressure to deliver visible results quickly. National leaders, keen to demonstrate development progress, prioritized speed and scale over inclusiveness or resilience. At the same time, donor agencies of the 1970s–80s often lacked strong environmental or social safeguards. As noted in the report, the World Bank’s own environmental policies had not yet evolved into the more robust frameworks we see today. This institutional lag encouraged a 'build now, fix later' mentality.

3. Limited Local Engagement and Feedback Loops

The project was designed and largely executed in a top-down manner, with minimal involvement of local communities in planning or decision-making. This not only led to the neglect of local knowledge systems—such as sustainable riverine agriculture and forest use by the local residents —but also eroded community ownership. Without effective feedback mechanisms or iterative review structures, early warning signs (like wood shortages, illness, or settler attrition) failed to trigger adaptive responses.  In fact, the project planners were unaware of these risk triggers.

4. Cognitive Biases and Silofication

They were not aware of the system within which they worked. Engineers focused on canal design, agronomists on cotton yields, and economists on repayment models—each optimizing their part while overlooking the whole. This siloed approach led to cascading failures: for example, ignoring fuelwood needs led to forest destruction, which in turn created erosion and worsened settler hardship.

In summary, the absence of systems thinking in Bura was not due to ignorance of the issues, but rather to structural, cultural, and institutional blind spots that prioritized speed, scope, and siloed expertise over holistic, adaptive, and inclusive design. The result was a project that fulfilled its blueprint but failed its purpose.

So…What Went Wrong? Siloed Thinking.
The Bura project was a classic case of cognitive silofication: each domain—engineering, agriculture, economics, health, environment—was treated as separate, unconnected units. The planners saw infrastructure as the primary success metric. But as any systems thinker knows, success in a complex project isn't additive—it’s structural.
In DSRP terms*:

• Distinctions (D) were rigid: “farmers” vs “engineers,” “agriculture” vs “ecology”—with little attention to the interplay.
• Systems (S) were underspecified: the “project” wasn’t seen as an integrated system with interacting parts.
• Relationships (R) between water use, health, fuel, income, and biodiversity were ignored or oversimplified.
• Perspectives (P)—especially those of local settlers—were largely excluded from project logic.

*If you want a refresher on how DSRP plays into this, please revisit the previous post and the outstanding 11-minute video embedded in it!  Or just click here.

How a DSRP Approach Could Have Helped
Using DSRP systems thinking means structuring information explicitly and cognitively. Here’s how it might have changed the outcome:

• Make better distinctions: Recognize that “success” isn’t just measured in concrete output, but in quality of life, resilience, and sustainability.
• See the whole system: Model the project as a dynamic set of interacting parts (agriculture, ecology, health, social cohesion).
• Map relationships: Understand how health impacts labor, how water affects both agriculture and disease, how forests tie into energy and soil conservation.
• Take multiple perspectives: Include the lived experience of settlers, the knowledge of local communities, and the feedback loops embedded in ecological cycles.

These moves aren’t technical. They’re cognitive. And they’re accessible to any project leader willing to shift from task-based management to structural thinking.

The Good News

Current Revitalization Efforts

Recognizing the past shortcomings, the Kenyan government, through the National Irrigation Authority, has undertaken significant efforts to rehabilitate and modernize the Bura Irrigation Scheme, but this time with an expanded, systems thinking view.

• Infrastructure Upgrades: Transitioning from a pump-fed to a gravity-fed irrigation system to reduce operational costs and improve reliability. Source: Irrigation Authority
• Expanded Irrigation: Plans to increase the irrigated area from the current 12,000 acres to 20,000 acres, with a long-term goal of reaching the full potential of 176,000 acres. Source: Irrigation Authority
• Crop Diversification: Encouraging the cultivation of various crops, including rice, maize, cotton, and horticultural produce, to enhance food security and farmer incomes.
• Community Engagement: Involving local communities in decision-making processes and providing training to improve agricultural practices.

These revitalization efforts aim to address the systemic issues that plagued the original project by adopting a more holistic and sustainable approach. While challenges remain, the current initiatives represent a significant shift towards integrating environmental, social, and economic considerations into the project's framework.

Additional information on the Bura project’s initial version:

Extracts from the World Bank report from the initial project’s limited systems view:

References

https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.bu.edu/stable/2385881?seq=1

https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/503041468046825515/pdf/multi-page.pdf

https://www.irrigationauthority.go.ke/projects/bura-irrigation-development-project/

There used to be a (highly misogynistic) TV advertisement for Virginia Slims cigarettes, which rather exploited the ‘women’s liberation’ movement to advertise a harmful product.  It’s theme was “You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby”, and ostensibly gave women their own cigarette, which they have somehow ‘earned’.

Thankfully, this post isn’t about that advert but I couldn’t help myself from using it for the title – with a twist.  Not a ‘long way, baby’, but a ‘long way babushka’.

What’s a babushka?  Many of us know this as a “Russian nesting doll” or ‘matryoshka’. (матрёшка).  It’s a set of wooden dolls of decreasing size placed one inside another.  And it should evoke the idea of the fact that everything is a system – and everything is part of a system.

Now let’s shift from cigarettes and wooden dolls to: systems.

The second chapter in the PMBOK® Guide, 7^th Edition, is entitled, “A System for Value Delivery”.  It says, in part, “projects exist within a larger system, such as a governmental agency, organization, or contractual arrangement….Organizations create value for stakeholders.”

It goes on to say that “components such as portfolios, programs, projects, products and operations that can be used individually or collectively to create value”.

So projects are part of a system – and as you know, projects are made up of work, and tasks, and milestones, and systems to describe who does what (RACI matrices),  how work is organized (WBS), scheduled (Gantt Chart), and those may be part of a project information management system (PMIS), which in turn is part of a larger information management system… and that may now be aided by AI agents, which requires that project managers get educated and certified, as part of an educational system…are you beginning to see babushkas?  I am.  They’re all around me.  And they’re IN me because I am a system – a system of systems.

This has been the foundation for me in teaching a suite of graduate-level project management courses, and was a real boost for me for course that I had already written called Project Value Strategies.  In this post, I’d like to discuss the key word in that PMBOK® Guide chapter: System.

More and more as I research and discuss what differentiates a project leader from a project manager, I think a big element of that distinction is whether or not they sense, see, feel, hear, appreciate the bigger picture of where there project fits in the larger scheme of things.  That “picture’ is the system, and it’s a lot like the idea of the babushka doll.

I have been now ‘hooked’ on the idea of systems thinking as a way to improve how project managers can become more successful – and become project leaders.  I will likely end up with a series of posts on this topic, with this being only an introductory one.

To that end, project leaders, I invite you to watch this video.  Consider it an eye-opener as it was for me. 

What you can expect in the next posts will be an expansion of that video and a strengthened connection between it and project value delivery.

See you later - in the system!

In the last blog post, I covered the huge advancements in project management - as a practice - getting it right about integrating sustainability into PM and now, adding some AI power to that combination.

In this brief post I want to summarize an excellent thought leadership publication by PMI's Brightline, called Sustainability in the Age of AI - the Integration Imperative.  This is free and downloadable here for PMI members.  I highly suggest downloading it and giving it a thorough read.  However, if you want a peek at the highlights - read on.

I created this summary with AI.  I must stress that this was a human-first, human-in-the-loop application of AI.  Nothing was taken without the required back and forth and critical thinking needed to make AI really work.  Here you go:

Summary of Key Takeaways, Key Findings, Success Factors, and Actionable Steps

Sustainability + AI: The Integration Imperative

 Key Takeaways

• AI and Sustainability must be integrated for maximum impact.
• AI is a catalyst, a collaborator – rarely if ever a stand-alone solution.
• Early AI-driven successes should be reinvested into sustainability.
• Early wins also motivate teams
• Cross-functional collaboration amplifies success.

 Key Findings

• 26% CO₂ reduction by Leaders vs 3% by Laggards.
  • Leaders and Laggards are defined in the report as follows based on self-reporting their AI-aided sustainability efforts
    • Leaders (31%) Reported being “very successful” or “extremely successful”
    •  Laggards (29%) Reported “slightly successful” or “not successful at all.

• AI strengthens 4 strategic areas:
  • Operational Excellence
  • Environmental Impact Management
  • Stakeholder Value Creation
  • Future-Focused Innovation

    Success Factors:

• Strategic alignment with core business goals
• Strong data foundations
• Leadership and Board readiness

 Actionable Steps

• Integrate AI & Sustainability from the outset.
• Build strong data infrastructure (Single Source of Truth).
• Train teams on AI tools and sustainability practices.
• Secure Board and Executive Sponsorship early.
• Launch quick-win pilot projects.
• Reinvest AI-driven savings into future initiatives.
• Measure impact across environmental, social, and governance (ESG) outcomes — not just ROI.

Two things really struck me immediately when reading the report - the idea of walking a key line between what the report calls "unbridled optimism" and "categorical skepticism".  Either approach will reduce your ability to think clearly and make progress in this effort to integrate sustainability and project management with the productive assistance of AI.  I think it's not all that different from general application of AI.  Taking either of those extreme perspectives is counterproductive.

I tried to visualize this for you with the AI assisted diagram below.

That's right.  There is a chasm on each side.  Walk the rational path that is neither so optimistic that you will be blind to the problems AI may contribute, nor so pessimistic that you have zero faith or confidence in what is offered up by AI.

The other concept that was really helpful in the report was the idea of a Virtuous Cycle.

What is that?  Well, let's let a conversation with AI define that for us:

A virtuous cycle is a self-reinforcing positive loop where each successful outcome sets us up for even greater success in the future.

• Each step in the cycle builds momentum, positive effects feed into each other, and the cycle becomes stronger over time.

Here's how this particular virtuous cycle works - in visual terms:

Again, I suggest that you read the Report, because it has significant amounts of research data that may help you dive deeper into how this integration could work in your practice area.  It's my hope that this whets your appetite to do so.

15 days seems like a short time - just over two weeks... a sprint.  But this is 15 Earth Days, so we're talking about a decade and a half.

This is a brief post with pointers to resources and thought leadership on the intersection of project management (which, luckily, is evolving to project LEADERSHIP) and sustainability. 

Do you see what is embedded in the word sustainability?  That’s right: sustAInability – it’s right in the middle of the word, bridging the ‘sust’ from sustenance with the ‘ability’ to provide continued sustenance.

Today is Earth Day.  15 Earth Days ago – meaning in 2010, we wrote a book called Green Project Management, and although it won PMI’s Cleland Award for Literature, it mostly got the same reception as a vegan dish at a Texas BBQ.  Meh.  But patience and perseverance paid off.  Sure, it’s 15 years later but now I’m glad (even a little proud) to see sustainability becoming a mainstream element of project management standards and thought leadership.

For example, PMI just launched “Sustainability in the Age of AI – the Integration Imperative”

In the introduction, PMI President and CEO Pierre LeManh says,

“PMI Thought Leadership’s latest contribution to this space – Sustainability in the Age of AI: The Integration Imperative – seeks to understand how leading organizations are applying AI to tackle one of the most pressing challenges of our time: the urgent need to advance sustainability efforts as we careen toward potential environmental catastrophe, whether we accept to recognize it or not.

We examined the experiences of more than 650 organizations across multiple sectors and regions, all of which are pursuing sustainability and AI strategies currently. The findings challenge some common assumptions while validating others, providing a roadmap for organizations at any stage of their AI and sustainability journeys.  This report demonstrates that AI can be a critical enabler in

helping organizations more effectively pursue their sustainability goals. It can be used to generate short-term cost savings while illuminating the long-term benefits of a comprehensive sustainability strategy.”

So this is about the application of AI to organizations’ efforts to become more sustainable.  Our role as project manager is to think past the end of the project – to be outcomes, benefits, and value focused, while, of course, not taking our eyes off of engaging project stakeholders, overseeing schedule, budget, scope, and risk.  In fact – as our original ancient tome indicated – a long-term, holistic approach to project management can help better identify and engage with stakeholders and to better scan the horizon for risks and plan intelligent risk responses.  And – armed with AI, we can do even better at all of those things, if it is applied properly.

Further making my day – my Earth Day – is the draft version of the The Standard for Project Management – Eighth Edition (PMBOK® Guide) ANSI BSR-8 being made available for comment.  I have started to look at it and was pleased to see the amount of integration (not just passing reference) of sustainability in the document.  I will continue to blog about this but I do want to remind readers that the comment period is open until 2-June-2025.  Click here to comment – you must be a PMI member to do so.

PMI also posted a list of resources here that are worth your time, including the above mentioned AI and Sustainability Report, and can help you make your Earth Day as well.  Check them out, and stay tuned for some comments on the new PMBOK® Guide’s excellent embedding of sustainability thinking for project leaders.

This is the second in the series by guest poster Sarah Shahmohammad.

Sustainability Communication Needs a Makeover

If I’ve learned anything from working in an environment where sustainability is practically non-existent, it’s that the way we talk about it can make or break its impact - whether it gets attention and has influence - or, like the image above - sounds like blah blah blah blah.

Living in Iran—a place that would probably never come to mind when you think of sustainable management—has made this journey particularly interesting for me. Not just for the lack of sustainable infrastructure, but because even the very concept of sustainability is so foreign, so removed from daily life or from professional prospects and possibilities.

For a long time, I was interested in nature, but I didn’t even have the right language for it. I didn’t know sustainability could be an actual career path. I didn’t know that I could combine my skills and interests with something that aligned with my values. I wanted to work in a way that had a real impact—but the only visible option was to become a ranger.

(And honestly, I’m too lazy for that.)

Figuring out that sustainability was a field, something real that people worked on, was one battle. Finding the resources, institutions, courses, and networks to move forward in it, a whole other one. But then, even once I pushed through all of that, there was yet another challenge—finding people to actually talk to about it.

At first, I thought the problem was just a lack of infrastructure. Then I thought it was a lack of education. But over time, I realized the biggest barrier wasn’t what people didn’t know—it was how sustainability was being presented. People weren’t rejecting the ideas because they disagreed; they were rejecting them because they weren’t connecting. And that meant the problem wasn’t just sustainability—it was communication.

That’s why learning how to communicate is one of the most important tools a sustainability professional can have.

Over the years, I’ve learned a few things about what makes sustainability messaging stick—and what makes people tune out completely. Here are some of the most important lessons (see infographic we created "Making Sustainability Stick" below):

1. It Has to Be Personal – People connect with things that feel relevant to them. The more something looks like me, affects me, benefits me, or threatens me, the more I’ll care.
2. It Has to Be Tangible – Huge numbers and statistics don’t always hit emotionally. People need real-life, relatable examples to understand impact.
3. It Can’t Be Emotionally Exhausting – Doomscrolling already has people overwhelmed. Fear-based messaging only works when it’s balanced with agency.
4. Think Stories, Not Just Facts – Humans think in narratives. Sustainability must be a compelling story, not just a technical issue.
5. Make It Visual – People process images faster than words. A good diagram or before-and-after image does more than paragraphs of explanation.
6. Don’t Tell People What to Do—Make Them Curious – Instead of rigid rules, invite people into a smarter, better way of doing things.
7. Give Them Hope – Sustainability isn’t a solved equation. It’s a journey toward something better, and we need as many people on board as possible.
8. Use Nonviolent Communication – Fear triggers defensiveness. A compassionate, practical approach works better than aggressive messaging.

The future of sustainability depends on how well we communicate it. If we can master that, we’re no longer just dreaming of a sustainable world—we’re making it real.