Sustainability, Risks, and the New Project Manager
Categories:
triple bottom line,
Linkedin,
Risk Management,
Leadership,
New Practitioners,
Sustainability
Categories: triple bottom line, Linkedin, Risk Management, Leadership, New Practitioners, Sustainability
|
So, how do we achieve that balance? How do we manage environmental risks? In order to find the balance, we first need to find the risks. The project’s charter is the first place to look for environmental risks. Is there an enterprise-wide environmental (sustainability) policy? This is a decision point. It there is one, is it connected to the project’s goal and objectives? This is another decision point. If there is no connection, we need to push back to ensure that the connection exists. If the enterprise does not have a sustainability policy*, then there should be some push back to establish one. If there is a deficiency in either the enterprise’s sustainability policy and/or the connection between the project and the enterprise, why should it be the role of the project manager to push back? Because we are where the “rubber meets the road”. We are where “ideas become real.” Everything an enterprise does is a project. Project managers are business leaders. I realize that we sometimes think of ourselves between some restrictive boundaries, after the project charter and at the turnover to ongoing operations. It is time we break out of those boundaries and take a more prominent role in the enterprise. After all, isn’t that what the chief project officer (CPO) is intended to do? The concept of CPO says that project management has a place at the “executive table", as a contributor to enterprise strategy. Let’s say, for argument sake, that this is the future of project management. Even if it is not, there are good reasons to consider the sustainability risks in project risk identification. There are stakeholders (people) who strongly believe that sustainability should be part of any project. Companies are pushing back on suppliers, insisting that if they want to do business with the company, that they produce some proof that they are using sustainable practices. Government regulations, mandates, and standards have to be considered. A big consideration is financial. It makes “cents” to become more sustainable. Greening your projects will save dollars. Whether those dollar savings are immediate or long-term will depend on the nature of the project. The risk, here, or rather the consequences, of not considering the environmental aspects of the project, could mean that the project costs (profits) could be adversely affected. There are stakeholders (people) who will be directly affected by the project, like the fisherman of the Gulf Coast. The risks of not considering the regulations, mandates, and standards are that the project could be delayed, shutdown, or become obsolete because the output is considered damaging to the environment. The risks of alienating or damaging stakeholders are obvious. In some instances, the environment (planet) will be affected, no matter where the project lies along the “green spectrum”; green by definition (wind farms), green by project impact (off shore oil drilling), green by product impact (K-cups of single service coffee makers), or green in general (software packaging). In no way are we advocating that every project decision, and these decision are not made just in the concept and planning phases of the project’s life cycle but are made throughout the life cycle, be made in favor of sustainability. What we are saying is that it is extremely important to at least consider those risks in the usual process of risk management; identification, quantification, assessment, response, monitor, and control. *Note: Don’t forget to look for a corporate social responsibility (CSR) statement. CSR and sustainability are inextricably connected. |
