People, Planet, Profits & Projects

You may remember that before we sent 2011 off into the sunset and wished it good bye (or good riddance), we played devil's advocate.  Below are some of the objections we hear to planning in sustainability to your projects.   All are real, and all actually have some virtue (it's the ying and yang of PM, we suppose).  We promised that early in 2012 we would play angel's advocate and explain why these objections to resolutions oughtn't, shouldn't, and mightn't make a (negative) difference to you, your projects, planet, people, and profits.

---------

5.  My project has its own needs and must not be hampered by corporate or other enterprise 'weights'.  I have enough to worry about with my project alone.

We’d actually turn this one right onto its head.  We’d say that if you DON’T take the time to connect your project to the strategic goals of your enterprise, you risk having an “outlier” project which has “success” unto itself, but because of its disconnectedness, is not really contributing towards enterprise success.  Furthermore, your own success as PM and your own career path count on you knowing what’s important to the enterprise.  We suggest you change your thinking.  These sustainability considerations are not weights – okay, well they do carry some weight - think of  them as jetpacks which can help power your project and energize your career.

4.  I don't want to worry about how my project's product/service will be used in the long term - what a bother!  I am a PM – my projects have defined beginnings and endings, and I work in the here and now.

Yes.  You work in the here and now.   And yes, we have to keep our focus on what PMI calls “progressive elaboration” and “rolling wave planning” – where we use the near term to adjust the medium term.  But don’t forget the long term.  And don’t forget the holistic view of your project’s product.  It will help you identify issues and risk you’d be blind to if not considered upfront.  We have real, specific examples of where failing to do this has caused significant failure of the project itself.  We’ve shared these on our blog in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

3. Since my project only runs for a short time, I don't need to run 'the project itself' efficiently.  I just need to get it done.  The operations people can worry about the steady-state.

First of all, we have to give the obligatory answer that “every bit helps”, so that if you do make sustainability improvements within the project, it will contribute, even if in a small way, to the overall global effort.   But the other piece is this.  You are a project manager – that’s a change agent.  Projects are about change, by definition.  So what you do sets a sort of behavioral model for the company.  So even if your efforts to be sustainability-focused are limited, they are likely to be emulated by others you touch in your organization.

 It is true that the steady-state of the project is owned by the operations people.  But you know what?  It’s very much your job as a project manager to empower the operations people to do their job efficiently – you set them up for success, including sustainability success.  Again, if you stay tuned to EarthPM and/or read our book, you will find solid, real examples of these situations.

2. Any money or effort spent to 'green up' my project is money NOT spent on my REAL project.  We’re all splitting one pie, so there is only so much to go around.

The view expressed in this assertion indicates a win-lose situation.  Only thing is…this is not a win-lose situation.  The “pie” – if you wan to keep this analogy – is expandable.  Just as we can give you many examples of how sustainability can enhance an enterprise’s bottom line, there are examples of how a project can actually benefit from money spent to make the project more efficient or ecologically responsible. 

1. They've begun to find planets with similar characteristics to Earth.  So, with regards to the earth and "using it up" -  it's replaceable! So, what, me worry?

Although this philosophy (assumption, really) that the earth has limitless resources has been the basis for much of our carelessness with regards to ecological sustainability (or the lack thereof).  Let’s use this silly assertion above as a way to remind us that as planets go, right now we really only have the one.

And, we reiterate: Have a very pleasant, safe, and fun New Year's and best of wishes to you, your people, projects, profits, and planets in 2012!

As we send 2011 off into the sunset and wish it good bye (or good riddance), we at EarthPM thought this would be a good time to set resolutions for 2012. 

But first...

..before doing something so angelic...

...we thought we'd play devil's advocate.  Below are some of the objections we hear to planning in sustainability to your projects.   All are reall, and all actually have some virtue (it's the ying and yang of PM, we suppose).  Early in 2012 we will play angel's advocate and explain why these objections to resolutions oughtn't, shouldn't, and mightn't make a (negative) difference to you, your projects, planet, people, and profits.

So here they are, people, in ascending order to the NUMBER 1 reason why we need not plan sustainability into our projects.

(insert drumroll here)

5.  My project has its own needs and must not be hampered by corporate or other enterprise 'weights'.  I have enough to worry about with my project alone.

4.  I don't want to worry about how my project's product/service will be used in the long term - what a bother!  I am a PM – my projects have defined beginnings and endings, and I work in the here and now.

3. Since my project only runs for a short time, I don't need to run 'the project itself' efficiently.  I just need to get it done.  The operations people can worry about the steady-state.

2. Any money or effort spent to 'green up' my project is money NOT spent on my REAL project.  We’re all splitting one pie, so there is only so much to go around.

1. They've begun to find planets with similar characteristics to Earth.  So, with regards to the earth and "using it up" -  it's replaceable! So, what, me worry?

Have a very pleasant, safe, and fun New Year's and best of wishes to you, your people, projects, profits, and planets in 2012!

Two strongly-related news stories caught our attention today.

One (from Politico.com) describes the closing of COP17, the UN Climate Conference which completed last week in Durban, South Africa.

The other, (from today's Boston Globe) using that as an opening, is a story about how technology is really the answer and that (as Gomer Pyle used to say: "surprise, surprise, surprise") the diplomats and governments are just not that good at solving problems.

Wherever you stand on climate change (and we're interested to hear just where that is), we hope you'll agree that the field of green technology holds promise for us - as project managers.  Indeed, to quote Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University, the "efforts to develop these new technologies need to accelerate to full throttle". 

That means development projects:

• research
• design/innovation
• testing
• trials

That means deployment projects:

• design/implementation
• construction
• training
• conversion

In other words, jobs for us as PMs.

So - sharpen your tools.  Build your 'green vocabulary' and get out there and do what the diplomats and policy makers continue to NOT do, and that's to make a difference.

One way to do that is to check out the job opportunites here on GreenBiz.  Note how many of them are driven by new projects.  That's all we're sayin'.

In this somewhat toungue-in-cheek, somewhat serious post, we address the sustainability role of the project manager by illustrating this with a football statdium.

In particular, we want to draw your attention to the Dallas Cowboys.  After all, this is Thanksgiving season in the US, a holiday celebrated here with a family meal, acknowledging what we're thankful for, and watching lots of football.  In particular, this Thanksgiving, the Dallas Cowboys played the Miami Dolphins (the Cowboys won by one point). In fact, Dallas plays every Thanksgiving in their beautiful new stadium, a finalist in the 2010 PMI Project of the Year Award.

The stadium deserved its Finalist position - the project team did a great job and this post is not meant to be any sort of direct attack on that project.  However we will take a couple of good-natured pokes at it based on some news stories.

First: some context.  It's our assertion that project managers are responsible not only for the execution of the project and its end deliverable, but the handoff of that project to the steady-state.  And we think project managers should have more of a role in assuring that the steady-state, or the "sustained" operation, is successful for the ongoing users of the project's product.

In the case of this stadium, two flaws have shown themselves in terms of steady-state operation.

1. The gigantic TV monitor has actually interfered with play.  See this story. See this story.

2. Premium seating for high-paying patrons has ended up in obstructed views. See this story.

So what could the project manager and team have done?  Did they fully take into account the steady-state operation of the stadium?  Is it really their responsibility?

We're just asking the questions.  We're just raising awareness about this.  Perhaps this is example is extreme, but we want this conversation to take place.  We want this post to be a way to point out that sustainability often has nothing to do with ecology but rather with the general "steady-state".

Recently we've done a lot of thinking about how sustainbility is a driver of innovation.  Inspired by the words of Marvin Odom, President of Shell Oil, who has just come right out and said that sustainability "may now be the number one driver of innovation projects at Shell", we've been seeing this sentiment shared by leaders of enterprises around the world, and echoed by PMO leaders as well.

This thinking was reinforced in an odd way via two stories - one of which crossed our desk just this morning.

In this Boston Globe story, and again in this story from Mass High Tech, we learn about the Endicott House, a 1934 mansion in suburban Boston which has been converted into a guest house and conference center.

At the Endicott House, MIT has started to use two forms of electrolyzed water (hypocholorous acid and sodium hydroxide) instead of Windex, Ajax, and Spic 'n Span.  These cleaners are considered harmful in large doses and are obviously less sustainabile than what is basically ... water.

From a project standpoint, this means that the facility installs a system which is capable of separating salt water into the electrolyzed products and store it in two 55-gallan tanks, from which employees refil their spray bottles.

And they can do this withut fear of spills or burns.

A company based in Massachusetts calle Lynfield Green Technologies (LGT) has already sold 10 such systems, installing them in schools and companies that use these solutions to clean cafeterias and even semi-trailers.

So its about projects.

It's about economic sustainability.

It's about lowering toxicity and ecological sustainability.

It's about safer working conditions (social sustainability).

It's about cost of greenality.

Listen to Patrick Lucci, the co-founder of LGT: "The operating costs for using chemical cleaners or disinfectants is 20 to 25 cents per room per day, but you can virtually eliminate those costs by purchasing a $15,000 device and your carbon footprint gets smaller".

You can do the math, there is a finite payback period here.  In the case of the Endicott Center, they belive it will be only a year or two.  That's without taking into account the other "Cost of poor greenality" aspects which can be figured in as well in terms of health and well-being of employees, disposal costs for chemicals and packaging.  You can also mix in the attributes of "good corporate citizen", "greening up your enterprise", and "higher employee morale".

Check out the stories - if you're into chemistry you may find the science interesting.

No matter what - we insist that sustainability is not only a source of innovation, it's a source of PROJECTS, and thus, worth learning about.

And - coming back around to our opening - it's more evidence that sustainability is more and more an "instigator" for innovation.