Plastic Risk Management - Part 1 of 3
|
I approach this three part (!!!) post from the PMI® viewpoint about risk. Risk, as you likely know, can be described as negative risk, the risk we usually think of, called threat, and positive risk, called opportunity. When I started this story it was very depressing – because I thought of it only as a threat. But a deeper dive (excuse the pun) led me to the conclusion that there was both threat and opportunity here. In fact, I’ll treat this as a three-part series. Part 1 will focus on risk identification, Part 2 on threat and opportunity analysis, and Part 3 on risk response – and the initiation of a huge project that will capture your imagination and tickle your project management fancy. So – all that said, let’s start with Part 1: Risk Identification. What’s the risk, and why was it so depressing at first? Here’s a challenge for you, dear reader. Consciously note and identify the number of plastic items you touch over the next 24 hours. In fact, let’s make this a bit interactive. I request that you respond to this post with that count of touches and items. Log it on a piece of note paper, remembering that the pen you use is also likely made of plastic. Plastic is everywhere. You’re reading this post while touching a plastic bezel of a device or with your hands resting on a plastic keyboard and/or mouse, and looking at a plastic monitor, perhaps snacking on pretzels in a plastic bag (watch those crumbs!). So the risk I’m talking about is indeed – plastic. Many of you have heard about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. For those not familiar with the situation, first of all, the word “patch” makes it sound way too small. It’s actually (currently) twice the size of Texas. And – ask anyone in Texas, Texas is BIG. Below is an image from a recent article in New Scientist magazine:
This is not just about litter – the plastic affects a much larger food chain – including us. And it’s not just this patch, where the plastic happens to concentrate. Remember your project management training – a risk is not a risk unless it has an effect on project objectives. In this case, for sake of argument, the “project” is continuing good quality of life on this planet. From the below, you can see that this definitely qualifies as a risk. Research suggests that not one square mile of surface ocean anywhere on earth is free of plastic pollution. Here is one small sample regarding fish, from research on the effect of plastics on sea life: “Fish in the North Pacific ingest 12,000 to 24,000 tons of plastic each year, which can cause intestinal injury and death and transfers plastic up the food chain to bigger fish and marine mammals. A recent study found that a quarter of fish at markets in California contained plastic in their guts, mostly in the form of plastic microfibers.” Where’s the plastic coming from? In other words, what’s the cause – the source of this risk? In a very recent NPR story, Jenna Jambeck (website: https://jambeck.engr.uga.edu/ ) describes well the sources of plastic. A graphic below helps explain it as well.
Professor Jambeck has collaborated on a technical article recently published in Science magazine which details this: Science magazine article - Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/768.full From the abstract: By linking worldwide data on solid waste, population density, and economic status, we estimated the mass of land-based plastic waste entering the ocean. We calculate that 275 million metric tons (MT) of plastic waste was generated in 192 coastal countries in 2010, with 4.8 to 12.7 million MT entering the ocean. Population size and the quality of waste management systems largely determine which countries contribute the greatest mass of uncaptured waste available to become plastic marine debris. Without waste management infrastructure improvements, the cumulative quantity of plastic waste available to enter the ocean from land is predicted to increase by an order of magnitude by 2025. The plastic garbage patch may even be much bigger than we thought, according to this recent article. And, oh, by the way, this is not the only mass of debris. Each of Earth’s gyres (click on the link and/or see below) also contain vast amounts of plastic.
So, the problem is huge, and it’s growing, but we have identified the threat and we have a much better handle on its size. In Part 2 of this three-part post, I’ll talk more about the risk analysis and move towards a risk response. But before you leave... remember my challenge to you. Track the plastic items that you touch over the next 24 hours (or whatever period you can bear doing this) and respond to this post with your numbers and if you're willing, a table showing the number and the items.
|
Secondary Risk in the Playground
| Photo Credit: Hanna Rosin Legal disclaimer: In this post it may seem like some of the stakeholders, perhaps even your humble author, have a nonchalant attitude towards children’s injuries. No children were hurt in the writing of this blog post, and as it happens, the author has a very non-nonchalant attitude to such injuries. Blog disclaimer: This post is a little less about sustainability than usual but it’s still very much about long-term thinking and it’s definitely related to major project management topics. Disclaimer disclaimer: There are no further disclaimers. Those of you who have been to a playground, lately, at least in the USA, have most likely noticed that everything is super-safe. Rounded corners, padded flooring, not a 90-degree angle in sight. As a parent, this makes you feel proud, good, calm, and less worried. Right? Things like putting down layers of rubberized mulch, super bouncy floors, and round, smooth edges -these are all example of a risk response we call mitigation – reducing the likelihood of a threat (in this case injury to a child). However, as good PMs we also recognize that there is something called secondary risk – new risk introduced by a risk response. But is there a secondary risk HERE? That is, do these risk responses to protect our kids from any possible threat, trigger any new risks? And what in the world would those risks be? Well, think a bit about it. Think of the threat of lost learning opportunities. Think of the way this may be insulating kids from the way the world really works. Is it possible that all of these safety measures are preventing kids from learning (albeit the ‘hard way’) about the world around them, the way things really work? There’s some very prevalent thinking that says something to the effect of: “Beware The Padded Floor”. For example, have a look at this extract from an article called The Overprotected Kid in The Atlantic magazine, discussing an adventure playground in North Wales called “The Land” at which from time to time there are fires: If a 10-year-old lit a fire at an American playground, someone would call the police and the kid would be taken for counseling. At the Land, spontaneous fires are a frequent occurrence. The park is staffed by professionally trained “playworkers,” who keep a close eye on the kids but don’t intervene all that much. Claire Griffiths, the manager of the Land, describes her job as “loitering with intent.” Although the playworkers almost never stop the kids from what they’re doing, before the playground had even opened they’d filled binders with “risk benefits assessments” for nearly every activity. (In the two years since it opened, no one has been injured outside of the occasional scraped knee.) Here’s the list of benefits for fire: “It can be a social experience to sit around with friends, make friends, to sing songs to dance around, to stare at, it can be a co-operative experience where everyone has jobs. It can be something to experiment with, to take risks, to test its properties, its heat, its power, to re-live our evolutionary past.” The risks? “Burns from fire or fire pit” and “children accidentally burning each other with flaming cardboard or wood.” In this case, the benefits win, because a playworker is always nearby, watching for impending accidents but otherwise letting the children figure out lessons about fire on their own. A more recent article in The New York Times delves into this even further, featuring a playground in a town in England with the very interesting name Shoeburyness. It describes playgrounds in this town as having removed the plastic playhouses with soft edges and introducing a mud pit, tire swings, logs and branches, and a workbench with hammers and saws (see photo).
Photo Credit: Andrew Testa, New York Times
And in London, says the article, Outside the Princess Diana Playground in Kensington Gardens in London, which attracts more than a million visitors a year, a placard informs parents that risks have been “intentionally provided, so that your child can develop an appreciation of risk in a controlled play environment rather than taking similar risks in an uncontrolled and unregulated wider world.” Amanda Spielman is the head of the UK Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted). Late last year, she announced that her agency’s inspectors would undergo training that will encompass the positive, as well as the negative, side of risk. She said the Ofsted agency plans to re-train its inspectors to recognize the “positive” side of risk. Humph. You could have just sent them to the PMBOK® Guide, Ms. Spielman! Finally, the article references a study (see cover below, linked to the PDF) that compared playgrounds in London to those in the US and reached these conclusions (pay attention in particular to #5): The U.S. seems to have reached ‘peak safety’. We have created a nation of overly expensive, homogeneously safe, and insidiously boring play spaces. Our injury rates demonstrate that these spaces have unintended consequences. In pursuit of fun, children are using play structures in unintended ways, falling on surfaces too expensive to maintain, and are not moving enough, becoming too weak to play without injuring themselves. To turn the tide, the solution is to follow London’s lead: 1. DESIGN FOR ALL AGES Both passive and active spaces are important, blur the lines between play and park. And don’t forget cafes and bathrooms! 2. PLAY EVERYWHERE Provide ‘play affordances’, such as boulders, logs, plants, and topography for inexpensive, but effective fun. 3. THINK OUTSIDE THE CATALOG All playgrounds should have the top five: grass, sand, climbing, swinging, and sliding. Water and loose parts are another plus. 4. PLAYGROUNDS ARE FOR PLAY Everything on a playground should be playable, including surfaces. Fun should be prioritized over safety and maintenance. 5. RISK IS A GOOD THING The best playgrounds look dangerous but are completely safe, offering ways to play based on skill level, strength, and bravery
Click on image for full "London Study of Playgrounds" report. I cannot leave you without at least one sustainability element here, and I found one, at least according to one commenter in a discussion about this topic. “Emily” says: “does anyone else think that ripping out the current playground equipment, because it’s “too safe,” after ripping out the previous generation of playground equipment, because it was “too dangerous,” is massively wasteful? Why not start with keeping the existing equipment (and bringing in some boards, hammers, nails, ropes, tires, et cetera, for “loose parts” play if desired), and just, giving kids more freedom in how they play? For example, right now, a lot of schools have rules against climbing up slides, hanging upside down from the monkey bars, sitting on top of the monkey bars, running on the playground equipment and/or in certain areas, doing cartwheels and handstands on the grass, et cetera. If those rules were reversed, even that would be a start.” Go Emily – think long-term!
|
