People, Planet, Profits & Projects

This is a post about golden thread.  And this time, when we say golden, we mean a lot of gold.

We like to point out that sustainability is not only in the domain of wind farms, biofuel factories, and electric vehicles.  Companies who deal in insurance, finance, telecom have all been featured in our hundreds of blog posts. 

This post is about Citi, which recently announced a huge program to support sustainability. Per today's feature article in edie.net, “Citi has announced a landmark 10-year $100bn commitment to finance activities that reduce carbon emissions, help communities adapt to climate change and directly finance sustainable infrastructure such as green housing”.

Citi itself has set aggressive goals for the ecological part of its triple bottom line:
- 35% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
- 30% reduction in energy and water use and
- 60% reduction in waste, all against a 2005 baseline

Citi has also set a 2050 GHG emissions reduction goal of 80%. Citi is going for LEED Platinum certification for its NYC company headquarters – this being included in its target to have 33% target of its real estate portfolio to be LEED certified.

So what’s the point?

The point is that Citi has integrated sustainability thinking into its portfolio, into its bottom line. It has seen the benefit of thinking long-term, and it is putting its money behind those efforts.  The “golden thread” between its mission, vision, and values, and its operations, seems to be intact and strong.

Here is Citi’s statement of Global Citizenship:

Citizenship at Citi means recognizing the impact we have on the world and ensuring our business is enabling progress in the communities we serve. We focus our efforts on the promotion of financial inclusion and economic progress and the advancement of environmental sustainability. Our people are the key to these successful efforts, and we invest in recruiting and maintaining a diverse and talented workforce. Together we are working towards that simple yet powerful goal: enabling people to make progress in their lives, businesses and communities.

With the announced investments, Citi is showing that these are not empty words.  Is Citi perfect?  Of course not.  Have they set a benchmark for connecting their “ideation” to their “operations” as we’ve so often touted?  Yes.

We suggest that you look up your own company’s ideation (mission, vision, value statements) and see how they connect to your operations.  It’s a worthwhile investment of your time.

Okay, total transparency here.  This post is mainly here because of the amazingly cool title and a chance to post a picture of a robot army.  Mainly, but not only.

We've been reading about (thanks to NPR) how a US Navy-funded project has begun to uncover some of the science of Arctic weather.  The article features comments from Martin Jeffries, an Arctic researcher with the Office for Naval Research, which paid for the development of the strange device.

"The Arctic essentially has been a closed ocean [to surface ships] because of the ice cover, which did not retreat so much in the summer," says Jefferies.

But climate change is causing the Arctic Ocean to thaw. In the summer of 2007 a lot of the ice covering the ocean melted; and in the summer of 2012, even more ice disappeared.

The Navy is paying researchers to develop gliders and other gizmos, and stick them in and near the ice, because it needs to figure out how quickly the thaw is coming.

The US Navy, after all, is about protection of the USA from ocean-bound threats, and thus changes to the ocean mean changes to strategy.  The military is interested in fact – and science – to make decisions. Relying on anything else is not only dangerous; it is counter to the Navy’s mission.   You can actually read about the Navy’s strategy for the Arctic here, in a document succinctly titled, “U.S. Navy Arctic Roadmap 2014 - 2030: American National Interests, Evolving Arctic Region Security Environment, Navy Roles and Missions, Alaska, Climate Change and Loss of Arctic Sea Ice":

http://www.navy.mil/docs/USN_arctic_roadmap.pdf

It opens with a letter from Admiral Jonathan Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations, with these words:

The U.S. Navy recognizes that the opening of the Arctic Ocean has important national security implications as well as significant impacts on the U.S. Navy's required future capabilities. The national security interests of the United States, an Arctic nation through the state of Alaska, extend into the entire Arctic Region. The United States has a history of maritime homeland security and homeland defense concerns in the Arctic Region along with a longstanding North American security partnership with Canada. The U.S. Navy, with its long track record of Arctic Ocean operations and exploration, is planning today to address future Arctic Region security concerns.

Here are a couple of other links with good information about the Seaglider:

http://www.apl.washington.edu/projects/seaglider/animation_1_640x480.html

http://www.apl.washington.edu/project/project.php?id=miz

So what about the PM and Sustainability connection?

Our interest in this is from the perspective of the project, the types of stakeholders and their interaction, and its deliverable.  Here you have an example of a green-by-definition project.  The purpose of the study being undertaken by the University of Washington on behalf of the Office of Naval Research.  So we have a state university, a Navy department collaborating on a project which, as an outcome, is all about taking data, advancing it to information and reports (see the PMBOK® Guide for this theme DataàInformationàReports) which can elevate the Navy’s knowledge and wisdom about operating in Arctic waters.  It’s all good.

And as we said above, it’s a good example of the ‘golden thread’ connecting Mission to Operations, as illustrated by the Stanford Execution Framework.  It’s the same ‘golden thread’ that we convert into the Sustainability Wheel™ which is the foundational element in our upcoming book, Sustainability in Projects, Programs, and Portfollios.

So, what do the results say?  What can a "Seaglider" tell us?

At the moment it looks like it (ice melt) is happening faster than expected, according to Craig Lee, a University of Washington researcher who led the Arctic study the Navy sponsored. Lee says scientists are still going through the data from last summer's study, but early indications are that warming Arctic waters are absorbing more sunlight and melting more ice than in past summers. "There's a positive feedback that happens," Lee says.

Whatever you believe about climate change and sustainability, you can see from this example that project, program, and portfolio managers can learn from the idea that an enterprise’s mission and its connection to what it actually does day-to-day, via projects, programs and portfolios, is a fundamental piece of learning.

Have a look at this stock price chart.  Noting where the price is today and the general trend you can observe over the past 3 years or so, it looks like a pretty enviable position to be in.  Right?

Well, if that’s true, why would an officer of the company be quoted recently as saying, “we’re not proud of where we are right now”?

The answer, as well as an exceedingly well-done parody video, can be found here:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2015/01/28/379395819/coffee-horror-parody-pokes-at-environmental-absurdity-of-k-cups

This is a story from NPR’s “The Salt”.   As mentioned above, It contains a horror-film parody video that you really must see (mild obscenities and violence).  Really.  You should go to the link and play the video – it’s worth it. 

As for the text part of the article, here’s a key extract:

Concerns about the K-Cup's environmental impact have been brewing for several years. "It's a warranted criticism," says Monique Oxender, chief sustainability officer for Keurig Green Mountain. She says the company has been exploring recyclable alternatives since Green Mountain acquired Keurig in 2006.

"We're not proud of where we are right now, and we're committed to fixing it," she tells The Salt.

Several competing coffee pod makers offer recyclable options. Nespresso, for example, makes its pods out of aluminum. But K-Cups are made from No. 7 composite plastic, which isn't recyclable in most areas.

The company says its newer coffee pod systems are made from recyclable plastic: the Vue, K-Carafe (which holds multiple coffee servings in one pod), and the Bolt (designed for workplaces). But those models are just 5 percent of the beverage packs Keurig Green Mountain produces; the rest are K-Cups.

So why not simply adopt those new materials in the far more ubiquitous K-Cups? The sticking point is backward compatibility — there are already millions of Keurig brewing machines out there, Oxender explains. "It has to work on all models," she says.

So – the reason for the lack of pride, despite the economic success, is that there exists something called a triple bottom line.  And there exists something called long-term, or life-cycle thinking, and things like Life Cycle Assessments.  A project manager needs to be aware of these things.  We may have to be the one to raise the flag and look at the company’s mission, vision, and values and ask the question – despite the potential economic success of this product, what does it do when it’s in use?  By the way, here is Keurig’s value statement about sustainability:

 “At Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., we are passionate about our business and look for ways to be more sustainable in everything that we do.”

That’s laudable.  But has this value been applied in decision-making when launching projects, programs, and portfolios?  One could certainly question it – and it appears that in stating “we’re not proud”, the company itself is questioning whether they’ve acted in line with their values, and whether or not they have considered the triple bottom line.

We took a shot at compiling the information available to show just how many K-Cups® have been placed into landfills, using the measurement of K-Cups, placed end-to-end around the world.  Turns out, the number of circles they can make around the earth is quite impressive.

Now, do us a favor.  Contrast this with the stock price chart.  The attributes are both going up, but one is in line with the company’s goals (to make money) and the other is at odds with their values (be sustainable, responsible, etc.).  We’re not advocating abandoning the desire to make money.  Quite the opposite – as project managers, we crave economically successful projects – they provide great financial opportunities for us.  But we also know that the objectives of a project must be aligned with the program, portfolio, and enterprise in which they belong.

That’s why we push so hard for project managers to accept their role as change managers and the ones who might step up early on (here, when we had only a couple of rings around the planet) and ask some very, very tough questions: “Do we really want people making nasty videos about our company?  Do we want to be the ones responsible for billions and billions of non-recyclable plastics going into landfills and doing who-knows-what to water supplies as the chemicals leech out?  Do we want our officers have to say to interviewers that “we’re not proud of where we are right now”?

We know some of the project managers out there are shaking their heads, saying that this is out –of-their control, not in scope, and so on.  We feel you.  We know.  We don’t think that’s enough of an excuse to NOT be a change agent, but we do have empathy for that attitude.  This is why we have raised the level of our focus up to the Portfolio level.  Our new book will focus on the Portfolio and Enterprise level.  We think you’ll find several cases like this one of interest.

In the meantime, watch out for giant coffee pod monsters!

From time to time on this blog, which – after all – fits under the banner of “Perspectives”, we like to simply provide you with resources that do just that – provide perspectives on project management.  In this case, the perspectives of a group of colleagues who have been focusing – separately – on sustainabiilty and project management, and what they have to “say” to each other.

Herein you’ll find the link to a video recording of a “Google Hangout” sponsored by Paola Morgese, author of The Handbook of Sustainable Projects.  It was all part of A Day For Sustaianability in Project Management.  You can click on the image below (or here) to go to the full day (about 2.5 hours' worth) of presentations.  This is totally free and doesn't require any signup - just go and watch.

There are an array of presentations from colleagues around the world who have been thinking about, writing about, and consulting in this area and we suggest that you give it a viewing.

In the section by EarthPM, Rich Maltzman brings up a few ideas you may never have heard before and makes some connections between not only PM and Sustainability but PM and Change Management, using the Head, Heart, Hands “CQ” model being advocated by Dr. Barbara Trautlein.  We think you may enjoy the way he’s embedded the fact that project managers, as (generally) “hands” folks, may view project management – and the places where roadblocks pop up to prevent a good solid itegration of sustainablity thinking into PM.

Here's that piece of the Day:

Have a look.  As we end the first month of a new year, give sustainability a Day.  Or at least part of one.

Thanks.

From a recent article in Scientific American:

"In July 2012 three of India's regional electric grids failed, triggering the largest blackout on earth. More than 620 million people — 9 percent of the world's population—were left powerless.

The cause: the strain of food production from a lack of water.

Because of major drought, farmers plugged in more and more electric pumps to draw water from deeper and deeper below ground for irrigation.  Those pumps, working furiously under the hot sun, increased the demand on power plants.  At the same time, low water levels meant hydroelectric dams were generating less electricity than normal ...

Energy, water and food are the world's three most critical resources.

Although this fact is widely acknowledged in policy circles, the interdependence of these resources on one another is significantly underappreciated.

Strains on any one can cripple the others."

Sound a little familiar?  Increase your project's scope, and you proably have a budget and schedule problem.  Fiddle with the schedule, bringing the date in by 3 weeks, and you probably have to spend money on overtime and may have to leave out some featres.  Got hit with a budget cut?  Get ready to just admit that the delivery date has moved out by a couple of weeks, and/or once again, you have to take a scissors to some features.

Sure enough, the Iron Triangle - or Triple Constraint - has lost its mojo recently, at least in terms of presence in the PMBOK(R) Guide.

But as Gene Wilder said so well in Young Frankenstein... "IT"S ALIVE!". 

Sure, the PMBOK(R) Guide 5th Edition talks about multiple contratints on page 6, and now leaves out the formal reference to the Triple Constraint, but you know - you feel - that it is still there.  And it often rules your proejct - doesn't it?

Now back to Scientific American.  The point of the article - definitely worth a read - is that the triad of Food, Water, and Energy is a similar set of constraints.  And as we work on our projects, it's worth thinking about the relationships that our project - and the project's outcomes - have on the social infrastructure around them.   We realize that not every project has the obvious connection to food, water, and energy, but any such connection is easier to imagine if you think about the product of your project in action -  cumulatively - say 5 or 10 years from now.  And it may not be the exact "Cripple Constraint" called out by Scientific American, it may be some other set of dependent variables.

We just urge you to think about your project - just as Gene Wilder did - not only in its assembly stages - but when... IT'S ALIVE!