People, Planet, Profits & Projects

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.

This is a guest post (1 of 2) from Sarah Shahmohammad (pictured below)...

...who I introduced at the beginning of 2025 as follows:

•  passionate about building systems where businesses thrive in harmony with the environment. 
• background in materials science and engineering and hands-on experience in sustainability management
• successfully aligned financial growth with environmental stewardship
  • Zero-Waste Solutions: Designed and implemented circular systems for businesses to minimize waste and maximize efficiency. 
  • Strategic Business Growth: Led sustainability projects that delivered measurable impact for both corporate and community initiatives. 
  • Circular Economy Expertise: Helped organizations transition from linear models to circular systems, reducing resource dependency and enhancing resilience

Here's her post (Part 1)

---

We Have GOT to Learn How to Talk About This Thing!

To talk about sustainability, we first need to understand how different people engage with it—because if we’re speaking to the wrong audience in the wrong way, we’re just shouting into the void. We need to meet people where they are and from there, help them take steps forward.  With luck and good stakeholder engagement, maybe LEAPS forward!

Generally, people fall into four broad categories when it comes to their thinking about sustainability (see figure):

🔹 The Committed & Aligned – Sustainability professionals, activists, project leaders, and organizations already integrating sustainability into their work and lives. These are the people actively shaping change, setting policies, building businesses, and advocating for systemic shifts.

🔹 The Well-Intended but Uncertain – People who care and genuinely want to do more, but don’t quite know how. They might recycle, use reusable bags, or opt for greener choices if available—but they’re not proactive about pushing sustainability forward. On their projects, project managers in this category may be somewhat ambivalent about raising issues to senior managers. They need clearer guidance and practical ways to engage.

🔹 The Skeptics & Fatigued – Those who feel overwhelmed, frustrated, or disconnected from sustainability messaging. They might see it as moralizing, impractical, elitist, or exaggerated—or they might just be too busy trying to survive the mess of everyday life – and ‘everyday projects management’  to think much about it.

🔹 The Culprit Polluters – A select few who know exactly what they’re doing and consciously make decisions that negatively impact the collective, to their own benefit.  “Why should I care?”, they say, “…not MY problem!”.  These are the ones setting the world on fire—sometimes literally.

Most people fall into the middle two categories (the bottom half of the figure). The well-intended but uncertain, and the skeptics who either don’t trust sustainability messaging or feel too disconnected from it.

The audience of this conversation is mostly the committed ones—the activists, the professionals, the sustainability nerds. And naturally, we tend to get stuck in our echo chambers—we surround ourselves with people who resonate with our ideas, we work in environments with people who share our vision, and at the very least, we all agree on the absolute basics: Trees good. Oil spills bad.

But sustainability isn’t a niche field—it’s a global shift. It’s not like some cutting-edge, science-y thing that we can just be nerdy about in our labs, develop cool new products with, and expect people to use without understanding it (like a new iPhone or a medical breakthrough).

This only works if literally everyone is on board.

We need to step outside our bubble and figure out how to:

• Make sustainability tangible and relevant for everyday people
• Bridge the trust gap with skeptics and fatigued audiences
• Provide clear, practical ways for people to engage without overwhelming them
• Make sustainability about smart system design, not just guilt and sacrifice

Let’s touch base, we’re dreaming about something that doesn’t exist yet.

As sustainability professionals, scientists, and enthusiasts, right-minded project leaders, we’re not just pushing for small tweaks to existing systems—we’re imagining and designing entirely new ones. Smarter, more holistic, more well-rounded systems that can give us the comfort we’ve become comfy in—without taking away the air we breathe.

Reducing harm is such a low-hanging fruit, we’re going for rebuilding smarter.

And in that process, we can’t afford to just stay at the peak of the arrow, charging forward while neglecting the majority of people who aren’t fully on board yet. Sustainability only works as a collective action—which means it’s on us to figure out how to bring others into the fold.

And this is where communication becomes critical. If sustainability was easy to understand and universally valued, we wouldn’t be having these conversations. But it’s not.  So we are.  That’s why this blog is here, and that’s why this post is posted – for you to think about this and respond with what actions you can take – what changes you can make – as a project leader.

Image adapted from: https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/delivering-project-benefits-model-overview-6904

I have been impressed with PMI’s shift to value delivery as what we as project leaders should be all about.

The recent Maximizing Project Success report, the speeches and messaging from President and CEO Pierre LeManh, and excellent videos like the one from Dave Garrett and Tricia Cabrey, “Project Success Defined and Measured” (click here) are all exactly on point.

But I still struggle with one question: WHEN do we measure value?

If you measure value while the project is being executed, you are leaving out something really important: the project’s outcome in service.  In use.  In operation. Being used by customers.  In the steady state.  All of those terms evoke the idea of the passage of a significant amount of time – a timeframe which by definition only takes place AFTER the project has been ‘completed’ and handed over to users.

A striking image popped in to my mind's eye (see below).  This shows Flint, Michigan government officials celebrating the cost-saving switchover of Flint's water supply, which ostensibly finished well with execution-based measures and even with initial outcome measures.

However, it wasn’t long before residents began becoming ill, and and not long after, angry residents (justifiably!!!),  demanded answers about how the project could yield such poor quality water – providing the opposite of value – contaminated water, illness, and death.

So, with these images in mind, I find that although the work PMI has done here is absolutely laudable, I note that there is a need to take this further – literally further in time, and to make some recommendations or guidelines about when value is measured.

I know that PMI's philosophy has (thankfully) asserted that project leaders must be involved earlier in the process of a project launch - during the 'rationale' stage.  I also know (from directly supervising about 150 project managers over the past three decades) that the personality of a project manager is focused on “get it done” and “now let’s move on to the next project”, not “let’s stay on and see how the deliverable works for a couple of months”. 

So it’s hard to get necessarily short-term, focused project managers to become long-term, holistic-thinking project leaders.  But if we are to truly measure a “Net Project Success Score”, shouldn’t there be some significant effort placed in the project’s product in the longer term, where “success” happens?

I had a conversation with ChatGPT about this.  I gave it my opinion about measuring value during and after a project’s outcome, and that exchange, which I think you will find illustrative, is below:

Your perspective has strong merit, especially considering that value realization often occurs after project completion, when deliverables are in use and benefits begin to accumulate. Here's how your argument holds up, along with some nuances to consider:

Why Measuring NPSS Post-Completion Makes Sense:

1. Value is Realized Over Time:
   • Many projects, especially in IT, infrastructure, or business transformation, don't show their true value until after implementation. Early NPSS measurements might capture surface-level satisfaction but miss the long-term impact.
   • For example, a new CRM system might launch smoothly, but the real value—improved customer engagement and sales growth—only becomes apparent months later.
2. Avoids Misleading Early Feedback:
   • During project execution, stakeholders may focus on immediate challenges (e.g., delays, budget overruns) rather than long-term benefits. Measuring NPSS mid-project risks skewing perceptions toward short-term frustrations rather than ultimate value.
   • It’s similar to judging a book halfway through—it might get better, but an early review locks in an incomplete assessment.
3. Aligns with Benefits Realization Management (BRM):
   • PMI’s own Benefits Realization framework supports the idea that project success is about achieving intended benefits, which often occur post-project.
   • Measuring NPSS after stakeholders have experienced the benefits better aligns with this philosophy.

Potential Counterpoints to Consider:

1. Stakeholder Perception Shifts:
   • By waiting until post-completion, there’s a risk that emotions fade or stakeholders' memories shift. Immediate post-project NPSS might capture stronger impressions, while a delayed NPSS might be more rational but less emotional.
2. Long-Term Tracking Approach:
   • Some thought leaders suggest a phased NPSS:
     • At Completion: Initial feedback on perceived value.
     • 6-12 Months Later: A follow-up NPSS to assess if the anticipated benefits materialized.
   • This method balances initial sentiment with real-world impact.
3. Complex Projects & Change Management:
   • For projects involving organizational change, early NPSS checkpoints can help gauge adoption and engagement. While they don’t measure final value, they provide insight into whether the project is on track to deliver it.

Your argument is solid—value is indeed a cumulative outcome, and measuring NPSS too early risks evaluating an incomplete picture. A post-implementation NPSS, possibly with a follow-up after benefits have been realized, seems like a balanced approach. It would focus on long-term value while still capturing immediate stakeholder reactions.

Next I asked the question many of you are thinking… WHEN does this make sense, and won’t it vary wildly amongst different practice areas like infrastructure compared to new game development?  The answer from ChatGPT:

You're correct that the optimal timing for conducting a Net Project Success Score (NPSS) assessment can vary significantly depending on the industry and specific project type. While there's no one-size-fits-all guideline, several factors can help determine the most appropriate timing for an NPSS evaluation:

1. Nature of the Project Deliverables:

• Immediate Impact Projects: For projects where deliverables provide immediate value upon completion—such as software deployments or event planning—conducting an NPSS assessment shortly after project handover can effectively capture initial stakeholder satisfaction.
• Delayed Impact Projects: In cases where benefits materialize over time, like infrastructure developments or organizational change initiatives, it's prudent to schedule the NPSS evaluation after a period that allows stakeholders to experience the project's full impact.

2. Industry-Specific Considerations:

• Technology Sector: Given the rapid evolution in technology, projects often require quick feedback. An NPSS assessment immediately post-implementation can help in making timely adjustments.
• Construction and Infrastructure: These projects might necessitate a longer interval before assessment to account for factors like settling periods or user adaptation.

3. Project Duration and Complexity:

• Short-Term Projects: For projects with brief timelines, a single NPSS assessment upon completion may suffice.
• Long-Term or Complex Projects: Ongoing NPSS evaluations at key milestones can provide continuous insights, allowing for adjustments and ensuring alignment with stakeholder expectations.

General Guidelines for Timing NPSS Assessments:

• Initial Assessment: Conduct an NPSS evaluation immediately after project completion to gauge immediate reactions and identify any pressing issues.
• Follow-Up Assessment: Schedule subsequent evaluations after stakeholders have had sufficient time to realize and assess the project's benefits. The exact timing should be tailored to the project's context and industry norms.

Ultimately, the goal is to balance obtaining timely feedback with allowing enough time for the project's value to manifest fully. Engaging with stakeholders to understand their expectations and experiences can further inform the optimal timing for NPSS assessments.

Finally, to come full-circle, I asked ChatGPT to consider the Flint, Michigan water cutover project as an example.  After a few back-and-forth exchanges, here is what it provided:

The Flint Water Crisis is indeed a profound example that underscores the critical importance of when and how to measure project value—and the dangers of focusing solely on short-term success metrics.

Key Lessons on Measuring Value:

1. Execution Success ≠ Value Delivered
   • In Flint’s case, the cutover project was celebrated for its cost savings and timely execution. From a traditional project management perspective—scope, time, budget—it might have been labeled a "success" initially.
   • BUT, the actual value—clean, safe drinking water—was not delivered. Worse, the project introduced disbenefits that were catastrophic: lead poisoning, illness, and long-term health impacts.
2. The Time Lag Between Completion and Realized Value
   • This highlights why measuring value immediately after project handover can be misleading. The negative outcomes (lead contamination, health issues) only became visible after residents used the new water supply for weeks or months.
   • Had an NPSS-style evaluation been conducted only at project handover, it might have shown high satisfaction among stakeholders (hence the celebration in the first image). But waiting until real benefits (or harms) became apparent would have revealed the truth.
3. The Importance of Measuring Disbenefits
   • Projects like Flint show how crucial it is to include disbenefits in success metrics.
   • Disbenefits here weren’t just technical (contamination) but reputational—city officials lost public trust, and the crisis became a national scandal.

How This Shapes TTV (Time to Value) and NPSS Measurement Thinking:

1. Post-Implementation Evaluation is Essential:
   • Value assessments shouldn’t end at cutover or project completion. Follow-up evaluations, especially for projects affecting public health and safety, are crucial.
   • In Flint, water quality should have been monitored continuously after the switch, with stakeholder feedback (residents' concerns about water taste, color, health symptoms) incorporated into evaluations.
2. Incorporate Long-Term Impact in Value Measurement:
   • Some projects require longitudinal studies—especially those involving health, safety, or environmental impacts. A multi-phase NPSS could be used:
     • Phase 1: Immediately post-implementation (technical delivery and initial stakeholder feedback).
     • Phase 2: 6-12 months later (to assess actual, experienced value).
     • Phase 3: Long-term (years later, for impacts on health, economy, or environment).
3. Stakeholder-Centric Evaluation:
   • Measuring success only from an executive or managerial lens (e.g., cost savings) ignores the experiences of end-users—in this case, Flint residents.
   • In NPSS terms, this emphasizes surveying the right stakeholders and focusing on perceived value, not just technical performance.

In Conclusion:

The Flint example is a cautionary tale about the dangers of prematurely declaring success and failing to measure true value over time. It highlights the importance of post-implementation evaluations, considering disbenefits, and ensuring that success metrics reflect the real-world impact on stakeholders—not just project execution metrics.

If NPSS had been applied over time, including stakeholder feedback post-cutover, the issues could have been identified sooner, potentially preventing harm.

If nothing else, this is significant food for thought about how we truly do value delivery and how we MEASURE value delivery, with a strong admonition about having it ONLY be during the project.

I value (pun intended) your thoughts on this, I know this can be controversial and difficult topic for us as project leaders.  Please respond with  your comments.  I believe a healthy conversation between humans – aided by side conversations with AI – is important.

I would like to continue discussing project success as I find the simple fact that this is now “front-and-center” in our practice – I find that to be inspiring.

This has been a topic of discussion for decades, or centuries - or even millennia.   In fact, my guess is that if you were to go through the archives of the hieroglyphs in ancient Egypt, you would see the equivalent of a rap battle between (1) those who thought the Pyramids were done if they finished on time and under budget and were shaped like a pyramid, and (2) those who felt they were only a success if the spirit of the Pharaoh made it safely to their afterlife.

Triple Constraint vs. Triple Bottom Line.  Triangles!

Pyramids and the afterlife... that’s an odd metaphor - but hey – we’re Project Managers – we love triangles and pyramids, so it works!

And, speaking of triangles, the entire idea represented in the Maximizing Project Success report is that long-term (afterlife?) performance of a project’s product seems to be something that actually makes the project itself better.

Andy Jordan covers this in his recent article, “What Drives Project Performance?” (read it here – it’s outstanding). 

What Andy points out, and what inspired me to create a GPT (a chatbot, or AI agent) on the topic, is the idea that ‘execution measures’ – those related to the triangle we know and love called the Triple Constraint – do not show up as a top predictors of project success at all – the top indicators are related to ‘outcome measures’.  In the Report, check out Page 22, in which the very top predictor of project success is Sustainability and Social Impact.  The triple bottom line... yep: another pyramid!

This is a striking finding.  An inspiring finding.

What does this say?  It says what many of us have been saying since … well, maybe since the time of the Pyramids.  Effort and thinking and planning spent on what the project’s outcomes, benefits, and value are all about is worthwhile, and will make the project itself more successful – in the true sense of the word “success”.  In this way it is very much like some of the research done by thought leaders like Jeff Pinto and Alexandra Chapman, both of whom are also very…inspiring to me.

It was inspiring enough for me to create a free GPT (a chatbot) that is based on a mashup of two words:

Beyond: meaning thinking holistically about what the project is all about, why it was launched, and who it servers, what benefits it provides, and how it provides value, and even what sorts of negative impacts it will have in the long run.

Delivery: the handoff of the project – what we usually think of as the “end” of the project, but what is really the “beginning” of the project’s product’s ‘afterlife’.

So: combine those words, and you get “Belivery”.  Beyond + Delivery.

The chatbot has been (or will soon be) trained with documents from folks like yours truly and Gilbert Silvius, Martina Heumann, Shai Davidov, Alexandra Chapman, Jeff Pinto, and many others I am unintentionally insulting by leaving them off this list. It is populated with examples of projects that have been, perhaps, too “execution-measure” focused at the cost of outcomes, benefits and value.

In future posts, I will reflect on how the GPT performs, how it continues to learn, and help project managers take to heart what was published in the PMI report.

Think about your projects.  The project's product lives on after you turn it over to operations. Do you consider the project's product's ... afterlife? 

Excited to share some key takeaways from the latest draft of the upcoming PMBOK® Guide Eighth Edition.  As in the animation above, featuring the Magic 8 Ball, will you find this helpful?

Most Likely.

First, from Yener Pala, and his post:

Below are some reviews and thoughts not just from me but from other informed observers on LinkedIn.

🔑From Processes to Principles: Shifting to a principle-based approach. It’s not just about processes anymore but about delivering real value and focusing on outcomes.

🌐Operations and Project Management: The 8th Edition addresses the relationship between operations and projects, highlighting their points of intersection such as product development, process improvement and resource transfer. This provides a clear framework for aligning operational efficiency with project objectives.

📊Value Delivery System: Projects, programs, portfolios, and operations are interconnected within an organization’s strategy to deliver value.

🔧Tailoring: Customizing approaches, tools and processes to meet unique project needs, contexts and diverse stakeholder expectations.

💡Agile and AI Integration: Recognizing the growing importance of adaptive approaches and the transformative impact of generative AI in project management. These tools and approaches provide exciting opportunities to innovate and enhance project outcomes.

I believe this new edition reflects the agility and adaptability we need to thrive in today’s dynamic environment and VUCA world. I’m looking forward to applying these perspectives to our works and continuing to grow as a project professional.

Video by Andrew Ramdayal

Video by Gautham Sudakar

Here's an outstanding LinkedIn post by Jose Barato, in which he reviews details of the changes from the 7th to the 8th Edition.  Take a look at this:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/main-changes-pmbok-8th-edition-jose-barato-ou4nf/

I will continue to blog about this in People, Planet, Profits, and Projects especially as the 8^th Edition is released.  And although it is not my main focus, I’ll discuss how the changes will affect the new PMP (and other certification) exams. I am also (I cannot help it!) blog about the  new"IPMA ICB4 Reference Guide on Sustainable Project Management", also recently released.

Stay tuned, and be sure to share any comments you have on the 8th Edition PMBOK(R) Guide here in the comments!