Viewing Posts by Richard Maltzman
Buy the numbers
|
Many of our PM colleagues don't buy the whole climate change "thing". And that's actually fine with us. We're not selling a philosophy, nor are we pushing any agenda, political or otherwise. We have (for many years now) simply been asserting that there is a connection between project management and sustainability. In our past book (Cleland Award-winning "Green Project Management") we made that connection between projects, project managers, and sustainability. In our upcoming book, "Sustainability in Projects, Programs, and Portfolios", as you can probably guess, we've advanced that assertion to the program and portfolio level - partially because we know that business leaders - VPs and Directors - ARE buying sustainabiilty as a business imperative and are integrating sustainability into their business plans, and partially because we've found a much more receptive audience for sustainability and long-term thinking in project management at the program and portfolio levels. This is illustrated in the latest issue of PM Network, which features a front page showing the Ivanpah solar installation in California and is titled, "The Energy Evolution" issue, there is a quote which illustrates this. "Because of the 20- to 50-year lifespan of typical energy capital projects, investment decisions and resulting assets from these projects will impact the organization for decades to come", says Galen Townson, PMP, PMO lead at Synergy, an energy provider based in Perth, Australia. "Not knowing what's going to happen in longer horizons creates a lot of risk in that investment, and the uncertainty is greater and it demands even more of a portfolio management approach". This quote shows us that Synergy - by necessity, is buying long-term thinking in their projects. And that takes us to the numbers. The numbers to which we send you is the "metrics" section of PM Network this month, which features some astounding figures. For example:
So this is PMI (not Greenpeace, not the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, not Al Gore) simply reporting on the numbers - the facts - that are out there, whatever your beliefs are about the science. We're depressed by some of the numbers (like the sea level rise numbers, comparing .62 feet between 190 and 2010 verus a projected 2 to 4.6 feet from 2000 to 2100, or the projected global tempurature increases of up to nearly 10 degrees F), but we are glad to see that at least the amount of investment that business and government is committing is present and public in a journal like PM Network. So we hope that you are "buying' at least the concept that projects focused on sustainability are on the rise - and that you can also make the connection to the concept that projects (at all levels, and whether or not they are related to climate change) should be integrating sustainability, holistic, long-term thinking, if for no other reason than to tether them more firmly to the mission and vision statements of the enterprise. The altruism is there but often silent. The numbers - well, they're a little louder. Are you buying? |
Paper or Plastic?
Categories:
LCA
Categories: LCA
|
As project managers we are often faced with tough descisions. So it's a relief, isn't it, when you stop off at the market on the way home from a long day of progressive elaboration and rolling-wave planning, Monte-Carloing, Paretoing, and determining the Estimate at Completion, that the only decision you have to make is.... Paper or Plastic for your bag. What a relief. An easy, no-brainer. Paper! Right? It's brown, it's re-used materials... right? Right? RIGHT? Not necessarily. We think there is actually quite a lessons-learned in the area of Procurement Management for your projects in the video we provide below. The speaker, Leyla Acaroglu is outstanding as she provides a flowing, logical description of how purchasing decisions should really be made. She's speaking in general, but if you have your "PM antennae" on, and you're willling to think a little more holistically about your project - including the time after the moment you leave the project because it's turned over to your client - you'll find that this talk can help you in your PM decision making. You're going to find definitions in this talk which will be helpful as well.
This is a highly-recommended talk. You will be that much smarter after listening.
|
Pointing (way up) to the facts.
|
The theme this week is up. Our 21-September-2014 post on EarthPM is called "Up, Up, and Away" . Today also, hundreds of thousands of people were filling UP New York City to draw attention to climate change. And finally (and the reason for today's post at P@W) is something way, WAY up in the sky - the MAVEN spacecraft, which, as this post is being written, is supposed to supposed to fire its six main engines, slowing down enough so it can be captured by the gravity of the red planet and go into orbit. You can (and should) read about the MAVEN project here and here. You can even follow a live stream of the mission at that second link from NASA. The bottom line (I know, I know, we said "up" and we're referring you to a bottom line...sorry) for MAVEN is that its misison is to understand the history of the climate on Mars. Why? Because the climate of Mars changed radically sometime in the last billion years and understanding that change will help us understand climate change here on Earth as well. Besides the obvious project management connection inherent in any space mission, we also want to point out that in this particular case there is another key theme: pointing to facts. When thee is a disagreement between project stakeholders, it's often the project manager that's called upon to referee. This NASA mission is one that will help provide more science to the discussion about climate change, by providing impartial, factual data about what happened on an entirely different planet as a basis for comparison with what is happening now on our planet. We applaud NASA for doing what we need to do as project managers - bringing clarity and new, impartial information to bear for a better project outcome. We wish NASA - and MAVEN - the best of luck with their mission, and we hope that you as project managers embrace your responsibility to be that arbitrator of fairness and fact - and to do it when called upon but also when your 'expert judgment' says, "it's time to step UP". |
Impressively Green
|
When we stsarted out many years ago pointing to the intersection of green and project management, we didn't notice too much in the popular PM journals on the topic. Sure, from time to time there would be a story about a wind-farm project, or a story that lightly touched on broader definitions of project success, but we rarely found coverage of sustainability as an 'integrated idea'. And that still holds pretty true. But we are beginning to see an uptick in a more holistic view of project success, more of a buy-in into project managers (or at least program and portfolio managers) as "benefits realizers", with the inherent patience and metrics to measure project success not only on delivery of a project product, but on the longer-term benefits of continued econommic success for that product, fewer ecological impacts from the steady state of that product, and the broader social impact of that product (in operation). Case in point: this month's PMNetwork magazine, which, as you can see in the picture - and perhaps coincidentally - has a cover that features the color green. But beyond the cover, deep inside the issue (without it being dubbed any sort of special 'sustainability' or 'green' issue) are many articles and features on renewable energy projects, on aligning sponsors more closely with project managers, even on the "long haul" 'sustainabile' careers of old crow project managers like your authors here at this blog. It's a thread through the issue and it's increasingly a thread through issue after issue of PMNetwork, and we applaud the work of PMI to continue to weave that thread into the fabric of project managers. Some other examples: the Finalists for the 2014 Project of the Year includes the Energy Systems Integration Facility being built by the US Department of Energy. There's a feature on the creation of an artificial oyster reef in Matagorda Bay, Texas, to revive an ecosystem lost with the eventual erosion of the Half Moon Reef. It's a project that involves collaboration between government and the Nature Conservancy. The story on the emergence of Tanzania as a leading African economy features stories on the challenges it faces with energy. Speaking of energy, Chile is also featured as a country with a promising set of renewable energy projects. There's a sidebar describing renewables projects in that country. And to top it off, there is a feature on REDD (not LEED, but REDD - Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degredation) projects for which the USAID and the World Bank has funded US$6.27 billion, and "that's a far cry from what the UN says is needed to combat climate change". All in all, it's reassuring to see the thread of sustainability - or at least a focus on sustainability-oriented projects - become more prolific. It's now time for the next step: raise the level of coverage to include how projects - ANY kind of project - can have a connection to the CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) objectives of the parent organization. Show how a software project, a bridge, the launch of a new coffeemaker - ANY project - can benefit from long-term, holistic thinking. We're impressed with the change. But we're still not satisfied. I suppose we could say that our passion for a true intersection of PM and Sustainability is...sustainable. |
Market Basket Analysis
|
If you live in the New England area of the United States, you probably know about DeMoulas supermarkets. Mostly branded, "Market Basket", these 71 stores dominate the area, often pushing aside large national (really international) chains, such as Stop & Shop and Hannaford. Recently, however, the stores have been all but shut down by a labor and leadership dispute that is about the way in which the company is run and who should be at the helm. Why do we bring up a supermarket in a blog about project management and sustainability? We actually never intended to do this until we ran into an editorial by former US Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, who served under Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Now, before you read the editorial, we want you to be aware that we are aware that this is not a political blog, and we usually try to stay away from pure politics and economics. And this editorial does drift into the philosophical and political area in the way it discusses capitalism and labor. But at its heart, the editorial makes a beautiful point quite beautifully, whether you agree with Reich on anything else. We think the editorial is important because:
We place the editorial below, with the highlighting our own, so you can draw your own conclusions. --- In recent weeks, the managers, employees, and customers of a New England chain of supermarkets called “Market Basket” have joined together to oppose the board of director’s decision earlier in the year to oust the chain’s popular chief executive, Arthur T. Demoulas. Their demonstrations and boycotts have emptied most of the chain’s seventy stores. What was so special about Arthur T., as he’s known? Mainly, his business model. He kept prices lower than his competitors, paid his employees more, and gave them and his managers more authority. Late last year he offered customers an additional 4 percent discount, arguing they could use the money more than the shareholders. In other words, Arthur T. viewed the company as a joint enterprise from which everyone should benefit, not just shareholders. Which is why the board fired him. It’s far from clear who will win this battle. But, interestingly, we’re beginning to see the Arthur T. business model pop up all over the place. Patagonia, a large apparel manufacturer based in Ventura, California, has organized itself as a “B-corporation.” That’s a for-profit company whose articles of incorporation require it to take into account the interests of workers, the community, and the environment, as well as shareholders. The performance of B-corporations according to this measure is regularly reviewed and certified by a nonprofit entity called B Lab. To date, over 500 companies in sixty industries have been certified as B-corporations, including the household products firm “Seventh Generation.” In addition, 27 states have passed laws allowing companies to incorporate as “benefit corporations.” This gives directors legal protection to consider the interests of all stakeholders rather than just the shareholders who elected them. We may be witnessing the beginning of a return to a form of capitalism that was taken for granted in America sixty years ago. Then, most CEOs assumed they were responsible for all their stakeholders. “The job of management,” proclaimed Frank Abrams, chairman of Standard Oil of New Jersey, in 1951, “is to maintain an equitable and working balance among the claims of the various directly interested groups … stockholders, employees, customers, and the public at large.” Johnson & Johnson publicly stated that its “first responsibility” was to patients, doctors, and nurses, and not to investors. What changed? In the 1980s, corporate raiders began mounting unfriendly takeovers of companies that could deliver higher returns to their shareholders – if they abandoned their other stakeholders. The raiders figured profits would be higher if the companies fought unions, cut workers’ pay or fired them, automated as many jobs as possible or moved jobs abroad, shuttered factories, abandoned their communities, and squeezed their customers. Although the law didn’t require companies to maximize shareholder value, shareholders had the legal right to replace directors. The raiders pushed them to vote out directors who wouldn’t make these changes and vote in directors who would (or else sell their shares to the raiders, who’d do the dirty work). Since then, shareholder capitalism has replaced stakeholder capitalism. Corporate raiders have morphed into private equity managers, and unfriendly takeovers are rare. But it’s now assumed corporations exist only to maximize shareholder returns. Are we better off? Some argue shareholder capitalism has proven more efficient. It has moved economic resources to where they’re most productive, and thereby enabled the economy to grow faster. By this view, stakeholder capitalism locked up resources in unproductive ways. CEOs were too complacent. Companies were too fat. They employed workers they didn’t need, and paid them too much. They were too tied to their communities. But maybe, in retrospect, shareholder capitalism wasn’t all it was cracked up to be. Look at the flat or declining wages of most Americans, their growing economic insecurity, and the abandoned communities that litter the nation. Then look at the record corporate profits, CEO pay that’s soared into the stratosphere, and Wall Street’s financial casino (along with its near meltdown in 2008 that imposed collateral damage on most Americans). You might conclude we went a bit overboard with shareholder capitalism. The directors of “Market Basket” are now considering selling the company. Arthur T. has made a bid, but other bidders have offered more. Reportedly, some prospective bidders think they can squeeze more profits out of the company than Arthur T. did. But Arthur T. may have known something about how to run a business that made it successful in a larger sense. Only some of us are corporate shareholders, and shareholders have won big in America over the last three decades. But we’re all stakeholders in the American economy, and many stakeholders have done miserably. Maybe a bit more stakeholder capitalism is in order. The editorial was retreived from Robert Reich's own web page - here. |
