There is no doubt about it, cloud projects add to
an enterprise’s sustainability strategy. According to 
Project managers know the importance of stakeholder expectations and requirements. The Project Management Institute increased their emphasis by adding the 10th knowledge area to PMBOK®, Project Stakeholder Management. Here in my home state of Maine, as in other states, the governor (as a stakeholder) wields a lot of power. What interested me the most, however, was that the project in question, is a “project with green intent” or as we define it in 
Guessing is not a strategy: How to build decision velocity with AI and real-time data
June 10, 2026 | Live Webinar
Steroidal Silo-busting
|
One of the reasons I've stuck with project management as a career choice for 150 years (well, okay it's a little less than that) is the challenge and fun of working across disciplines. As PMs we have to make the engineers and marketeers play nicely together. And, as I said above... this can be challenging and... "fun". So we are indeed "silo busters". This is a metaphor based on the idea of vertical organizations (Manufacturing, Marketing, Sales, Engineering) as silos (you know, those big tall cylinders you can see on farms to store grain; see above photo) and us as project managers providing the necessary ‘horizontal’ or cross-silo communication and collaboration one needs to have a project succeed. This same scenario can – and must – take place at the corporate level as well if sustainability is to become part of the fabric of modern business. Thankfully, it is happening. From this week’s ‘edie’ report: There is a growing awareness of how cross-sector partnerships are providing environmental benefits to business, particularly in the automotive industry, says Toyota's Steve Hope, general manager of environmental affairs and corporate citizenship, told edie that industries are starting to break away from a linear way of thinking and companies leading in sustainability are looking wider than their "own doorstep".
We’ve seen this ourselves. As a proud contributor to ECOCAR2, we’ve seenoutstanding, sustainability-oriented, creative, productive collaboration between Government, the auto industry, the IT industry, and 15 great North American universities in their effort to take ‘leap-and-bound’ innovation in the development of a hybrid automobile. Learn more about ECOCAR2 here. We also see collaboration between customers and even competitors in the IT industry under the guidance of GreenTouch, where the goal is to to” deliver the architecture, specifications and roadmap to increase network energy efficiency by a factor of 1000 compared to 2010 levels”. Read more about GreenTouch here. The point? The point is that once again, we as project managers are poised to be leaders in the area of breaking silo walls. We, more than any other discipline, have the ‘muscle memory’ of getting people who don’t normally work together well – to play in perfect harmony for our project purposes. We just have to bring our game to the next level and get our leaders, even our industries, to participate in collaborative efforts in which sustainability is brought to the forefront. How do you do that? Learn more about sustainability, about CSR, and in particular, learn about your own company’s current commitment to these areas. Stay tuned right here at People, Planet, Profits & Projects, where we post regularly on this topic and give examples of how companies are collaborating and gaining a competitive advantage by incorporating sustainability thinking throughout their company – and especially – especially – at the project and program levels. You can also follow EarthPM’s blog where we’ve recently been talking about CVS/Caremark and their efforts to bring their mission/vision to reality with CSR projects – very interesting and important work. So – strengthen those silo-busting muscles, work out regularly, get the vertical organizations in your enterprise to work together and….get stuff done! It’s what we do. |
Cloud Projects – Double, Maybe Triple Edged
|
As the definition above implies, the amount of storage allowed can be increased or decrease at will. All the user has to do is direct the data to the cloud and pay for the storage. In many instances, a large amount of data storage is free. Services like Dropbox, Google Docs, etc. offer a certain amount of data stored free. Users are connected to the cloud via the Internet. Here’s where that sword comes in. There still needs to be energy consuming hardware somewhere. Data doesn’t just go up into the air and float around. There also may be a “chicken and egg” situation here, too. Because of the flexibility and easy access to the cloud, more users may want to store more data requiring more hardware, a larger data centers, to provide the platform for the cloud services. If more and more applications reside on the cloud, the same situation exists. Greenpeace International in 2010 observed that because of the increased demand caused by cloud computing that there may be a negative impact to carbon emissions and global warming. But all is not lost. Cloud computing projects being relatively new can take advantage of the latest technologies including blade servers. Blade servers provide more efficient data storage facilities. The efficiencies include onboard cooling, power and networking for all blades housed in the entire system, rather than the older style that provides cooling, power and networking per rack of servers. Because blade servers are large capacity in a smaller footprint, more of them can be placed in the same original footprint. But then the sword grows another edge. In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal (February 11, 2014), of the 90 or so Chief Information Officers (CIOs) attending the February CIO Network Conference, in answer to the question “Has cloud computing allowed you to repurpose your traditional IT resources, cut IT staff to reduce costs, or both;” 42% answered repurpose, 6% answered cut staff, and 52% answered both. The cost cutting is good, the reduction in jobs affects the “people” aspect of the first 3Ps; planet, profit, people. Two of the most pressing issues for data centers, therefore Green IT are: power consumption and cooling. A cloud project allows for a concentration of resources to be able to utilize economies of scale. However, it is important to remember that the cloud isn’t really a cloud, but has to have a landing pad. That landing pad will be energy intense and could affect the business case for cloud computing. |
You Gantt Always See the Long-Term
|
As project managers, we are necessarily focused on the term of our projects. Most projects - even the "long" ones that take years to complete - have numbers that are tiny when you compare the numbers in those plans comparison to the types of numbers associated with our planet. But we do need to think about the long-term effects of the product of our project. Our projects fit in with programs. Our programs and projects are part of an overall portfolio, and that portfolio is your organization’s way of getting their overall objectives accomplished. Further, at the portfolio and program level, it’s very likely that there are mission and vision statements that have Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) targets that are financially and ethically tied to the company’s shareholders, stakeholders, owners, and customers. So regardless of your views on climate change, the connection you make from your project’s product to the longer-term view is a strategically and tactically important connection. And that brings us to the beautiful picture you see at the top of today’s post. It comes from a striking exhibit at Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA, entitled “Seeing Glacial Time: Climate Change in the Arctic”. You can read about the exhibit in this article, and you can visit the exhibit’s home page here. It’s on until May of this year, so … for a “long time” in project terms. Here is the description of the exhibit: Seeing Glacial Time examines how eight contemporary artists employ the "real time" of photography to visualize the largely imperceptible, gradual changes in "glacial time" from the bellwether Arctic region. Most of these artists have gone to extreme lengths—and distances—to capture and create their imagery. Some utilize scientific and appropriated photography as source material, while others depart from documentary traditions to create expressive images suggestive of a melancholic Sublime. This timely exhibition of paintings, photographs and a video installation introduces Boston audiences to artists who either have not been seen before in the area or have created new work for this occasion. Featured artists are:
Subhankar Banerjee But our point comes back around to us as project managers. Perhaps as you wander around the museum exhibit – either in person, or virtually – take some time (there’s that word again) to consider some of your Gantt chart “bars” and whether or not they shouldn’t at least have a ‘dotted-line-dependency” with the impact of its product in the longer term, seen in the context of the planet. Examples: What consumables does this product generate in the long-term? Does the outcome improve, or at least keep stable, the working and living conditions for the local population where it will be used? A new book on which we are working, one to follow up Green Project Management, will ask – and by way of real examples and measurements – will help answer these questions. In the meantime… Get the context, and ask yourself these questions. It couldn’t hurt. |
High Power - High Interest
|
According to one of our local newspapers, Statoil, a Norwegian energy company, has decided to pull out of a pilot offshore wind project using floating wind turbines. Rather than investing in Maine, its next project will probably be in Scotland, although the company is still interested in a US based operation, just not in Maine. So how did stakeholder influence affect the overall project? This past January, Maine’s Public Utilities Commission granted initial approval for Statoil to moor 4 floating turbines off the coast of Maine. However, the governor was not happy about the proposal. In essence, Statoil’s proposal included a subsidy from Maine electric rate payers which totaled approximately $200 million over the next 20 years. That subsidy did not sit well with Governor LePage. He did not want Maine taxpayers to help pay for a private company’s venture into technology. Analyzing the risk, another important part of what we do as project managers, the governor decided that it was too one-sided. In effect, Statoil transfer a lot of the economic risk to the people of the State of Maine. It was an ideal situation for Statoil. An alternative LePage proposed was to reopen the bidding process to include an effort by the University of Maine with their business partners. The proposal from UMaine would include a smaller subsidy and greater economic return to the State. That reopening of the bidding process was apparently enough for Statoil to withdraw their proposal and the funds that go with it. So, I’d like to think that part of the risk analysis for this project included a contingency in case Statoil pulled out of the project. That contingency includes the application by UMaine for federal monies to offset the cost of the proposed pilot. Whether the project happens or not, or for that matter, whether this type of wind farm becomes a reality is still up in the air (excuse the pun). What I do know is that it makes a great case study for sustainable projects and projects in general. There are stakeholder expectations, risk assessment, make-buy decisions (should we go with a company that has done this thing before or should be take it on ourselves), and the 3-Ps, as well as all the other factors that need to be managed. But always remember the power of the stakeholder! |
The containment of sustainment. Woof.
|
Image from http://londonleprechaun.com/ As we've looked at project management maturity and the intersection of sustainability and project management, we've come to realize that while it's critical to get the message of sustainability to project managers, perhaps we were (and we love dogs, so the analogy is okay) "barking up the wrong tree". Ironically, our book, Green Project Management, which won the Cleland Award for Literature in 2011, pictures a tree. All that's missing is a picture of us barking at it!
Perhaps, we've recently thought, the right audience is Program and perhaps even Portfolio Managers. Indeed, we used this philosophy in successfully submitting a presentation for the PMO Symposium in San Diego last fall and that went very well and got a great reception. But it's not enough. Not nearly. Adding to the consternation, and perhaps a cause for more barking, is the fact that the Third Edition of the Standard for Program Management mentions - even features - "sustainment". This is a great sign.
For example, in section 4.5, Benefits Sustainment, the text says: "Although responsibility for benefits sustainment falls outside the traditional project life cycle, this responsibility may remain within the program life cycle. While these ongoing product, service, or capability support activities may fall within the scope of the program, they are typically operational in nature and are not run as a program or project". It then goes on to list 13 bullets (example: 'monitoring the performance of the product, service capability, or results from a reliability and availability-for-use perspective...'). But not a single one of these bullets really, truly cover the ideas of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), or Triple Bottom Line (3BL) thinking. They almost seem to be consciously avoiding the topic! This unfortunate limitation (or containment) of sustainment, and we would assert, containment of sustainability, is something we're going to key in on in 2014 and beyond. We plan to continue to work with project managers to bring sustainability thinking into projects, but we think we'll be more effective at the Program level. What are your thoughts on the idea of Benefits Sustainment? Is this indeed related to the ideas of sustainability? Should the 13 bullets be expanded or reworded to include environmental and social impact explicitly? Should "sustainment" itself be broadened in its definition in the Standard? Or, are we still barking up the wrong tree? Please - throw us a bone!
|