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! |
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 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!
|
Back to School
|
For instance, a year ago, BU announced a “competition” between the various dormitories challenging the students to reduce their energy usage over the same period the previous year. According to sustainability@BU, “The challenge, in which the dorm with the largest reduction from previous years wins a pizza party, provided a fun way to foster awareness among the student body and to educate them on the simple ways to make a huge impact on our We have always said that stakeholders are becoming more aware of sustainability issues and it is echoed by Danielsen’s RHA Vice President, Monica Martin, “I believe our students were very mindful about their electricity consumption and remembered that turning off the lights when they were out is one very simple way to save energy and not waste power. Opening the blinds on a sunny day instead of turning on the light is also a very simple way students have saved power,” she said. Further, sustainability@BU reports that she also believes that the residents have continued these behaviors even though the competition is over. Changing behavior so that sustainability becomes second nature is what we are all about with our People, Planet, Profits and Projects blog. One of the resident students, David Meyer, had a great quote “Energy costs money. Just because I don’t have to pay for it doesn’t mean I should waste it.” The energy savings were achieved by doing simple things: unplugging fully charged laptops, using energy efficient light bulbs, and turning down the heat when leaving for class. Another sizeable undertaking by BU was over intercession this year. At the track and tennis center all of the halide lights were replaced with new LED fixtures. The light output is much greater, but the energy needed has been greatly reduced to the tune of about a 40% reduction, enough to power 70 homes in the US for a year. One of the more interesting aspects of the project was that because the new fixtures are so efficient, “they are linked on a wireless network that allows the fixtures to communicate. The building is divided into seven unique zones that can be controlled remotely. Each of the tennis courts, the track, throwing cage, and the stands all have separate lighting controls which allow for only certain areas of the facility to be lit as needed, greatly reducing energy use.” “We can control each fixture in terms of lighting output,” says Director of Building Automation Services, Elijah Ercolino, adding that “[the system] is infinitely flexible.” The system saves energy (profits and planet) and provides better lighting (people). While your enterprise may not be able to undertake a project like a track and tennis center, it should be able to apply the more simple energy saving methods like unplugging laptops when fully charged and turning down the heat when finished for the day, adding to the triple bottom line. |
It seems like most, if not all, colleges and universities these days are undertaking some pretty interesting projects to help the triple bottom line of their respective schools. Boston University, the one I work for part-time, is no exception. I relate these projects to you not only as something BU is doing, but also as potential projects that you can undertake with your enterprise. After all, it is our contention that project managers are business leaders and it follows then that as business leaders, sustainability (the triple bottom line) is almost a given as one of our jobs.
campus-wide carbon footprint.” The chart at left shows the campus-wide impact of the competition. Danielsen Hall certainly had the greatest improvement, but there were significant reductions at most of the competing dorms. What's the Muda with your project?
|
We'd like to congratulate Leslie Ekas and Scott Will on an excellent blog post here at Projects At Work and take the liberty of connecting this - perhaps unexpectedly - to sustainability in PM. In their post, found right here (see, we source locally), the authors do two important things in our opinion:
Regarding the first bullet, we really encourage you to read this article whether or not you are involved in software projects because what they have to say is important in general for any project. We do tend to get used to waste. We get comortable with it. As they say, "teams have grown accustomed to living with it. And if a team can justify allowing it in the first place, then it can often justify living with it “a little longer.” Regarding the second one, the connection to sustainability is right in this quote: "If not remedied, these shortcuts can hinder the long-term viability of any product". This has been one of our themes since the release of the book, Green Project Management, which asserts that project success is really only true success if the product of the project is viable in the long term. And yet, that beig said, the connection to our book is much, much stronger. We dedicate an entire chapter "Lean Thinking, Muda, and the Four Ls" to the idea of removing waste from the project itself. Our 4L principle - Lean, Learn, Linked, and Lasting, provides an approach to applyiing the ideas raised in this article to any type of project as well as the product of that project. Below is a summary of that chapter taken directly from the book.
Figure courtesy CRC Press, Green Project Management, (C) 2010 CRC Press
So we suggest combining the ideas in the article from Ekas and Will1 with the ideas from our book, Green Project Management, to make your project - and its product - greener and more sustainable, as well as one that can earn your company more green.
|
