People, Planet, Profits & Projects

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!

^{Sara Shah}

We start the year 2025 with a thoughtful post from guest poster, Sustainability Strategist, Sara Shah. 

Here's her intro:

Hi, I’m Sara! I’m passionate about building systems where businesses thrive in harmony with the environment. With a background in materials science and engineering and hands-on experience in sustainability management, I’ve successfully aligned financial growth with environmental stewardship, with these examples:

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.

Sara starts with a very interesting question.  Read.  Ponder. Act accordingly.

------

Are we what we do?

And which part of ‘what we do’ should we be?

We spend hours thinking about our jobs, the industries we work in, the markets we appeal to, the future of our company, skills to learn, the impact we want to have, the satisfaction we are or are not getting out of it all, and how to get that promotion and that client. For all the time and attention we focus on our professional lives, we are bound to become more of what we do.

As lived experience and the systems and behaviors we interact with, shape our neural pathways and ultimately our identity, who we are as a person, I think we in fact are, largely what we do. So, we should probably be a bit more thoughtful about our choice of profession or consider this in our decision-making for choosing a profession.

Then, when we do choose said profession, shouldn’t we do our best to embody it and let it shape us? Should we not do our best to behave in alignment with that? And if that profession happens to be in service of a higher value, such as the environment or the life of all things, shouldn’t we try even harder to conduct ourselves aligned with our values in mind?

I wonder how each person comes to arrive at a sustainability-oriented career path. Are you doing optimization as a project manager and suddenly realize, well, I actually AM using resources efficiently, let’s see what else is there? Are you haunted by the numbers and data and news and wildfires and floods and decide to do something about it? Did you grow up in the countryside and have a deep connection to nature ingrained in your psyche? Does it simply make sense? Is it a thing of the heart or of the mind? Or both?

I surprise myself as I ask this question in this entry. This is a familiar question that snuck up on me again. Before I even started working on sustainability professionally, when it was a personal question, I would ask this of people: What seed and in what conditions should that seed be planted so one grows up to (how can we put this politely) not leave a giant oil stain  in the middle of the ocean?

As an Iranian, there are many issues—a long list of things to advocate for or fight against. Quite recently, there was “women, life, freedom.” There is so much struggle within and without to choose from. There are so many different things you can pioneer. In an interesting turn of events, I made the unpopular decision to advocate for nature, plant trees, pick up trash, and learn sustainable management.

Among all causes, the environment is a good one to go for. It is so vastly encompassing of so many things. If you want to do it right, chances are that you get to cover human rights to a good extent. If we have come to such a place of maturity and compassionate intelligence where we realize ‘the environment’ as the living space of all things and decide to spend money on renovating and redesigning our systems into ones that are in harmony with that space, we probably recognize other humans and animals and all living things as inherently valuable by virtue of carrying life.  This is the holistic view that leaders should take.

For me, working on the environment is not only essential (because I’d like to have a place to live) but also a kind of practice that ensures if we’re doing "this", we’re probably getting ahead on covering other bases. It is the kind of field of work where I am bound to take a course on workforce transition and educate myself on how human rights must be practiced in a sustainable community. For example, if we’re shutting down a steel plant in one city because of water scarcity and half the people of that city are actively working for that factory while the rest of the people depend on it for their livelihood, we certainly need to be more mindful in making such decisions than were the morons who built a steel factory in an arid area.

Last week, I went to the environmental exhibition in Tehran. There were a lot of cars claiming to use less fuel, a lot of single-use packaging for people’s lunches, a few small and rural businesses and NGOs showcasing their activities, and a LOT of single-use plastic on the panelists’ tables. I attended the circular economy panel. It was good news to see it being discussed and getting some traction. Specifically, in Mashhad, the waste management department had done a lot of good. As I stood up to speak about circular business models, I was bound to mention all the unnecessary single-use plastic items on the tables, which brought a shy, acknowledging smile to everyone’s face. The plastic cups on that table were not the most evil of all things but the stared back at me as representatives of all systemic contradictions.

Immediately after, I faced another contradiction in behavior. Someone—a sustainability manager, no less—reached out to me on LinkedIn, talked a lot about values and humanity and fresh air, and then behaved disrespectfully toward me. They used sexist language, demanded free labor, stated that I am dispensable, and neglected and undermined the value of my time and work. Thankfully, they did it clearly enough that I could easily recognize and end that line of communication quickly, but all of this makes me question so much.

How can one advocate for life of all things and people and tell one person to their face, that they don't matter? Does our imperfections negate the validity of the work we have done? What is the intention/action importance ratio?

As it is, as sustainability advocates, life is quite hard. To begin with, it is a challenge to speak about the “environment” and be taken seriously. If that is managed and whatever company is concerned about their sustainability reports and is seeking a professional with expertise in sustainability, they are most often in it up until compliance and triple bottom line, and hardly would they take steps as far as regeneration and circularity and further redesign. As individuals, does our behavior carry more weight into the impact we are after in the field of sustainable development? How proper and zero waste should we actually be?

Then I wonder, how does one bridge the gap in mentality? Where is the common ground on which we can connect?  Are you bound to be a jerk like that sustainability manager of an oil company that I encountered? Have the oil fumes gone into your head or is it just cultural background? Must one be a jerk to work in a polluting industry?  Does this go hand-in-hand, or can you be a change agent within an industry that – by its nature – is a bit… jerky?

It’s quite like being religious. If you wear your religion like a slogan and preach it, it’s kind of more iffy if you go ahead and act in a way that outright breaks fifty rules in that religion’s book. You are likely to discredit yourself as a representative of that religion and also be bad PR for that school  of thought. There have been instances where people have questioned me as an advocate of nature about my smoking or wearing makeup, to which I have responded, “No one is perfect, and I’m on a journey, the system is broken.” Although said in a humorous tone, it is not devoid of truth. I do have an addiction that I’m trying to kick, and I am on the lookout for a sustainable makeup brand but still am not ready to give up the Clinique® mascara. What is the compass and guide to balance between the ideals and practicality? Is neglecting or exploiting a group of people impacted by your business in the same department as cigarette butts? This is not a rhetorical question, I am genuinely asking, because I wonder if the same mechanics of being blind to a cigarette butt are the same as a larger enterprise and the people in it, do you just build a higher tolerance for being a jerk and get better at it?

As Gil Friend is quoted in the introduction of Maltzman/Shirley’s book  Green Project Management, you don’t have to choose between making money and making sense.

These stories all somehow mirror each other. Certainly, no one is perfect, no system has it all figured out, and the most solid thing we have to go on in the way of creating a harmonious world is a vision and an intention. That is no small thing, though. Everything we live in has been imagined by someone (often a very short-sighted someone, in my opinion), so renovation is absolutely not impossible. The challenge isn't perfection, it's progress.

As much as I dream of sustainability, I promote practicality. As much as I speak of moral conduct and higher values, I know individuals are fallible and encourage taking any action that is available to you.   In any of these discussions, obsession is a corrosive virus we should look out for. Still, there is a point of optimization and balance: between professional excellence and ethical behavior, between zero-waste lifestyles and convenience, between industrial progress and clean air, between acknowledging and processing emotions and having logical discussions about the environment, and between dreaming big and taking small, imperfect steps.

---

Thank you for sharing this, Sara.  You gave us much to think about - and act on!

If you are interested in writing a guest post, respond in the comments or contact me on LinkedIn.

As we round out 2024 and head into 2025, I think it’s important to recognize the progress PMI has made in reframing the practice of project management - into what I call project leadership.

In particular, the expanded view of our work from focusing only on scope, cost, and time (which are indeed important) to a long-term, holistic outlook past the end of the projects end date – that’s laudable and really the driving force behind this blog.

In particular, I would like to point your attention to their “Maximizing Project Success” thought leadership report published recently (Click Here).  And as we approach the New Year, I also would like you to note that the 8^th Edition of the PMBOK® Guide is now in the comments period.  I’m going to encourage you to chime in and add your comments to the 8^th Edition – let your voice be heard!

Maximizing Project Success

Pierre Le Manh, CEO and President of PMI, captures the essence of the report (well, the part that I like the most) here in the very introduction to the document:

"Expand perspective: Ultimately the goal of this research and the call we are making to project professionals is to expand our per­spective. All projects have impacts beyond just the scope of the project itself. We all must consider the broader picture and how the project fits within the larger business, goals or objectives of the enterprise, and, ultimately, our world."

Part of the document – an important and useful one, is focused on redefining project success. The new definition of project success – and this is strikingly simple and powerful – is:

Project Success Definition:

Delivered value that was worth the effort and expense.

Notice that this is so different from definitions that focus only project efficiency – which you could call project management success  - being on time, delivering what was promised at point of payment, and doing it under budget.  At the heart of that definition is the concept of project value – which is delivered AFTER the project end date.  Thinking about that long-term, operational value of the PRODUCT of the project – this has been the theme of this blog all along, and it is music to my ears to hear this being spoken (loudly!) by PMI.

There is so much here – 45 pages worth – so it is worth a read.  There are measurements proposed including a Net Project Success Score, and research… but it also has practical learnings you can apply (quoting below):

• An understanding of how success is defined and mea­sured on a global scale, providing a way to talk about what success looks like from all angles.
• Two major, actionable findings that any project and/or organization could benefit from: implementing key metrics and embracing social impact.
• Directional guidance by industry, project type and funding source, offering candidate categories of measurement and performance levers that are predictive of project success.
• Beyond that, the research has offered us insight into how our profession is evolving and ways to lean into the change. Project professionals should understand that:
  • Value, even beyond project completion, should be the pri­mary focus, paired with solid execution.
  • They must manage the perceptions of multiple project stakeholders, including executives and customers.
  • They must be accountable for and own all the above, ele­vating the work they do and their value to the business.

Moving this forward - The 8^th Edition PMBOK® Guide – Comment Period Open

As mentioned above, the 8^th Edition is now available for comments.  You can go there right now here: https://publiccomment.pmi.org/guide-project-management-body-knowledge-pmbok%C2%AE-guide-0

You will have to log in via your PMI account to comment. I suggest that readers of this blog take the time to help PMI’s own words as spelled out in the “Maximizing Project Success” report get into the PMBOK® Guide.  It’s worth the time to get your voice heard.  You have until 1700 (Boston, MA, USA time) on 19-Jan to submit your comments.

Maybe even make it a New Year’s Resolution!