People, Planet, Profits & Projects

To follow up on my last post, I thought I’d talk about the opposite problem.  In some parts of the world, there appears to be enough water to satisfy the citizen’s need.  Take Germany, for instance, while there is enough water, the Germans continue to serious conservation efforts.  This led Anton Troianovski, writer for the Wall Street Journal to ask about Germany, “Is the country saving too much water?” in Monday, September 29, 2014’s edition. 

Some of the conservation efforts undertaken in Germany are: flushing toilets with old bath water, taking turns in a bathtub without refilling, new toilets that have a two gallon normal flush and a 1 gallon water-saving flush.   When children leave a ½ of a glass of water or there is water from washing vegetables, it gets poured into a watering can.  While saving water in Germany isn’t necessarily going to help water starved areas of Africa, “conserving water is an expression of personal virtue and social responsibility”, according to the article. German’s also conserve water to save money.    However, it is one of those vicious cycles, utility costs are fixed, and using less water means higher prices per gallon, which means more conservation measure and increasing prices, etc.

But there are consequences for saving too much water and that spawns various projects.  So projects aren’t just created to reduce water consumption, but also to handle the issues resulting from water saving endeavors.  A major issue that has arisen due to the reduced water usage is that sewage isn’t moving quickly enough through the system, causing odor and corrosion problems.  Berliner Wasserbetriebe, Berlin’s utility authority has an Odor and Corrosion Control Task Force.   Some of the measures being used are flushing fresh water through the system, deploying salt, filters and sticky panels of deodorant. 

While the issues do arise, conserving water is innate.  Even an engineer on the task force continues to reduce his and his family’s water usage.  Students in school are taught to turn off the water while shampooing their hair, soaping their hands, and brushing their teeth.  The one or two minute shower is still popular. 

It is important to know that there are at least two sides to every issue.  Project managers who are aware of those different sides will be able to take advantage of many projects that are created. 

When I was in high school (along with George Washington), a long time ago, I was required to memorize a poem and present it in class.  I chose the Rime of the Ancient Mariner, by Samuel Coleridge.   To this day, I can still recall bits and pieces.  One piece I remember vividly is:

"Water, water everywhere,
And all the boards did shrink;
Water, water everywhere,
Nor any drop to drink."

Of course there are many interpretations of the meaning of this, but literally, it is a pretty scary thought, but yet, it may be a reality.  We’ve talked before about freshwater being the next oil, a limiting resource.  There’s lots of saltwater, like in the Rime, but you can't drink it as is.  We’ve seen Wall Street bet on water becoming scarcer in the future resulting in a supply and demand situation and the cost of water rising to some expensive level like gasoline.  We can live without gasoline; we can walk, we can ride a bike, we can seek alternative energies.  But we can’t live without water.  We can live longer without food.  According to livescience.com there is a “rule of three”.  You can live 3 minutes without air, 3 days without water, and 3 weeks without food.  Of course it is all situational, but one can see that water is critical.

According to an article[1] in a recent issue of Outside, “In ten to twenty years, unless the drought breaks or everyone in Los Angeles starts recycling their own pee, Lake Mead will run dry and the Southwest will have to pack up its playthings and move in with its relatives back east.”  That is because there are legal requirements (Law of the River) that govern water release to Mexico, California, Arizona, and Nevada, and those allocations of water are unsustainable given the current situation.  The original document was created during the “wet” period early in the twentieth century.  We all know what has happened since and most recently; fires, droughts, water rationing, and more.  However, I do believe that with the help of projects and competent project management, that there are ways to mitigate this risk.  Remember, nothing gets done without projects and project managers who are aware of all of the issues, including life cycle assessment and sustainability, will be the ones to bring us into a “sustainable future.”

So, what can be done?  According to Mr. Rowan, we need to be smart about our water usage, “Children of Dune smart.”  The article suggests many projects to help the low water conditions.  I will highlight a few here. Phoenix uses 165 gallons of water per person per day, Tucson uses 128 gallons.  The difference is that Tucson embraces the desert look, while Phoenix likes the lush lawn look.  Project – move at least all industrial and commercial sites in Phoenix to native (desert) landscaping.  Incentivize individuals to do the same.  All new homes are required to recycle their grey-water (shower, sink) for irrigation. 

Using Las Vegas as a model – project – all drain and toilet water is treated and pumped back into Lake Mead (except for evaporation) 100% recycle.  LA project – paying LA residents $2.00/sq. ft. to remove their lawns.  Australians have been dealing with a lack of water longer than we have, and they have successfully adopted processes to greatly reduce their water usage.  Australians use about ½ the water per person as we do.  If they can do it, we can.  All it takes is projects to move ideas to reality.

One of the larger projects undertaken will be with the agricultural industry.  According to the article, agriculture uses at least 70% of the water in the Colorado River basin.  An interesting fact is that each hamburger produced takes about 500 gallons of water.  If we all eat 1 less hamburger per year, we can save a generous amount of water.  Isn’t an advertising campaign to make people aware of some of these statistics a project?  I didn’t know, however, that we have a “use it or lose it” policy when it comes to water usage.  In other words, there is no policy where a farmer can sell back surplus water.  Instead, the current policy encourages farmers to use their allotment no matter what.  As a result, farmers over grow alfalfa, as an example, then ship the excess overseas.  That policy needs to change!

We need to be creative.  We need to develop projects that will both encourage conservation and create new ways to use water in a more sustainable way.  Those projects need to be managed by competent and sustainably savvy project managers.  The second piece we can’t forget is that sustainable savvy project managers also are aware of the way they manage their projects so that they are managed in a sustainable way.  We approach it this way. It is a two-pronged approach; sustainable project managers manage both the product of the project and the project itself, both in the short term, and for the entire life cycle of the product.  That is why we encourage all project managers to continue to “get smart” on sustainability.

Putting their (our) money where their mouth is, President Barack Obama signed Executive Order (EO) 13423 into law.  For those of you not familiar with United States law, according to http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Executive+Order, an executive order is “A presidential policy directive that implements or interprets a federal statue, a constitutional provision, or a treaty.”  EOs do not require congressional approval and are often, as in this case, used to set policy.  EO 13423 is used to strengthen federal environmental, energy, and transportation management.  It created and still creates lots of projects within the federal government as well as providing direction to private companies who choose to institute more environmentally (green) projects.   A wealth of information can be found (for free) on the US EPA’s website, Greening EPA.

EO 13423 sets some significant goals for the government, one of the larger consumers of natural resources, thus the need for those significant goals.  The purpose of those goals is to limit and reduce the amount of resources used.  Now doesn’t that sound just like what project managers do?  At this point you must be rubbing your hands!  Some of the projects undertaken to reduce consumption are: 

1. Reducing energy intensity 30% by 2015, compared to 2003 level.
2. Related to the reduction in energy intensity is the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 305 as related to the 2003 baseline.
3. Procurement (a word we all know very well); expand purchases of environmentally sound goods and services, including biobased products.
4. Increase purchases of alternate fuel, hybrid, and plug-in hybrid vehicles.
5. Reduce water consumption by 16% compared to the 2007 baseline.
6. 95% of electronic products purchased must meet the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) standards where applicable and enable Energy Star® features on 100% of computers and monitors; and reuse, donate, sell, or recycle 100% of electronic products using sound management practices.
7. Construct or renovate buildings in accordance with sustainability strategies, including resource conservation, reduction, and use, siting and indoor envrionmental quality.

Of course, we all do not work for the federal government.  So what does that have to do with us, as project managers?  Well, what that does give us, sustainability responsible project managers, guidelines to work with for our companies to become more sustainable.  Remember, external projects are not the only ones usually undertaken by organization.  Given all the reasons that companies are becoming more and more aware of good reasons to become more sustainable, internal sustainability projects will become priorities.  As well as being the “right thing to do”, they are also fun project to work on with long term results. 

Executive Order 13423 has a lot more to it than I presented here.  However, just scratching the surface can provide an abundance of sustainability oriented projects for your organization.

I thought I posted this earlier in the month.  I guess I didn't.  Must have been a "senior moment."

Google X is the research and development arm of Google.  Google has a value of almost $400 billion.  When you are Google, you have a serious critical mass of resources to be able to research and invest in new technologies.  Google is one of those companies that we considered “at the top of their game” in our 2010 book (Green Project Management), because of their commitment to creating a sustainability friendly company, socially, economically, and environmentally. 

My reading habits are rather eclectic, from the Wall Street Journal to various fly fishing magazines, to Real Simple, to Outside as examples.  In the recent Outside Magazine, there is a story about a new project coming out of Google X.  While it is an alternative energy project, it is different from previous projects.  While it is a wind power project, it is unusual.  Also, like some other revolutionary products (projects), Post-its® for example, this new project from Google X started out as something else.

According to the article by Megan Michelson,   The Sky’s the Limit, about 10 years ago; kiteboard pioneer Don Montague “hatched a plan to become the fastest person to circumnavigate the globe.”  He proposed using a 65’ catamaran with a parafoil cruising at 250 feet above the earth.  He happened to preview the idea with Sergey Brin and Larry Page, founders of Google and friends of his.  He was showing them how much power was available at higher altitudes and explained that he could actually generate electricity.  At that point, Sergey and Larry said “Don, don’t waste your time sailing around the world.  Let’s save the world.” 

Initially, Google invested about $15 million into the project, but last May the project was sold to Google X.  Using the enormous resources of Google X, the project continues with aspirations of building a 600-kilowatt wind turbine capable of powering 300 homes, the equivalent of modern land-based wind turbines.  One of the reasons that this type of wind generating technology could be so successful is that it streamlines the generating equipment.  Rather than the large, cumbersome land-based turbines, the equipment required is much more elegant.  The article has a quote from a professor at Delft University in the Netherlands, a university on the forefront of sustainability.  Professor Roland Schmehl is quoted as saying “While classic turbines are facing physical and economic limits, airborne wind energy shows interesting potential.” 

From Google’s website the challenge we are facing with wind generation is “Wind turbine architecture is at a plateau.  Conventional wind power systems are reaching the limits of their technology. To generate more wind power, turbine structures have become taller and heavier. On average, onshore turbines require 100 tons of steel, fiberglass, concrete, and other materials to produce a single megawatt of capacity to power 500 U.S. homes. Large structures like this are expensive and complex to construct and therefore can only be installed economically where the winds routinely travel between 20-28 kilometers per hour. Less than 15% of all land around the world meets this criterion.”

The good news is that a company like Google and their R&D facility is attacking this project.  Ideally, a significant amount of our energy needs could be generated using this new technology.  According to Don Montague, “Is it a race?  It doesn’t really matter who’s first.  If anyone is in production in 5 years, we all win.”

I promised to explore some more points from the McKinsey Global Survey[1] results.  The on-line survey was available from February 11^th, 2014 – February 21^st, 2014.  According to the article “3,344 executives representing a full range of regions, industries, company sizes, functional specialties, and tenures” responded to the survey.  In a previous post I wrote about aligning sustainability to a company’s business goals, missions, and values.  Aligning sustainability with corporate vision is critical and represents the “hub” of our Sustainability Wheel™ (a tool our upcoming book Sustainability in Projects, Programs, and Portfolios: Realizing Enterprise Benefits and Goals).  Another very important aspect of sustainability is “reputation management.”   

The survey results point out that “year over year, large shares of executives cite reputation as a top reason their companies address sustainability.”  Of the “core” activities reported in the survey, “reputation has the most potential value for their industries” and “many of this year’s respondents say their companies are not pursuing the reputation-building activities that would maximize that financial value.”  Right there is a hint as to what types of projects there may be in the future.  Project manager's utilizing softer skills (communication. negotiation, motivation) in an organization could have the impact organizations are looking for to boost the reputation, and boost the bottom-line.  The chart[2] below is very telling in that reputation has been one of the top reasons to address sustainability for the last few years.

Once again, it is the hub, or the connection between the organizations mission and the sustainability efforts, that needs to be highlighted and then pursued as part of the overall strategy of the organization.  Where the project manager can be of assistance is to include actions within their plans that overtly forward the organization’s sustainability efforts, keeping in mind that each project is unique and may need a unique plan to improve or at least emphasize sustainability reputation.  Why do we believe that the project manager can play an important role here? 

PMs can play an important role because two of the top three reasons (reported in the survey) that are key to improving sustainability reputation are “communicating company’s sustainability activities to consumers” (stakeholders) and “building and maintaining external-stakeholder relationships.”  Doesn’t that sound like something we do and have always done?

One of the major issues we see with all of this is how an organization easily evaluates their sustainability stance and efforts, versus how they are perceived by other companies both within their industry and external, as their standing with all of their stakeholders .  New tools available for evaluation are way more complicated that they have to be; too many moving parts and very uninteresting.  Since we wrote Green Project Management, we have been researching and developing a simple, exciting solution for organizations to be able to easily evaluate their project, program, and portfolio efforts with regard to sustainability and then easily set sustainability goals and realize the benefits.  Unfortunately, it seems to take more time to develop a simple solution that a complex one, but it will be worth the wait.  Look for the book sometime the Spring/Summer of 2015.