Larry Barnard's Blog

The Sustainability Revolution

lbarnardltre — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:25:27 +0000

We are going through a revolution right now on “sustainability.” I would like to compare this revolution to what we went through on “quality management” back in the 60s and 70s. Although I think the topic of sustainability has much greater ramifications, the challenges of creating change and implementing a new way of thinking were also met by our foundational thinkers of quality management. Edward Deming was probably the most famous contributor. His ideas helped define quality, the importance of quality, and the cost of not having quality . These ideas were initially met with disregard, disbelief and ultimate defiance. Deming had to take his ideas to Japan before he was embraced and valued.

Today we have the same problem introducing sustainability. One of the main push backs that I receive when teaching and consulting on sustainability is that the benefits do not out-way the costs and that we cannot afford to incorporate proper sustainability activities. In fact, the benefits do out way the costs. The problem is that most organizations simply don’t calculate “true” costs and spend most of their time measuring the wrong things.

For example, if you’re deciding between natural gas and solar technology, you can’t simply make a straight comparison between the current market costs of natural gas per unit and the costs of solar technology. The trilogy of fuels: natural gas, coal and oil are limited in availability. We must incorporate this into their cost. Additionally, many fuels create dangerous gases, waste, and toxic bi-products throughout their lifecycle from appropriation, processing, shipping through to consumption. All of these variables must be incorporated into the cost/benefit calculations. If this was done accurately, with these considerations translated into reflective costs, I’m sure solar and wind technologies would start to compete with the benefits of coal, natural gas, oil and nuclear power.

Another key variable that’s rarely incorporated is the cost of social responsibility and the impact to key stakeholders around the world. Ask some of the community groups around the world what they think about high risk mining or about oil pipe lines stretching under their land or fresh water supplies, and I think you’ll get a different picture. Shouldn’t these things be included in the cost/benefit analysis? I’m not saying we don’t need fuel, I’m simply saying we need to change our approach and incorporate sustainability into our plans.

I’m sure that ideas on quality received the same cold reception 40 years ago. The reality is that we cannot afford not to incorporate sustainability into our projects, our organizations and our lives. On an annual basis we are spending the resources of three planets to maintain the current population. The US alone creates about 250 million tons of waste a year for landfills, recycling, and incineration plants.

How long can we sustain burning through our resources before we do irreparable damage to the planet? When will we add the real cost of sustainability to our business cases? When will we incorporate social responsibility into our stakeholder management plans?

Just like quality management, sustainability needs to be planned in. Just like quality, we need to believe in prevention over inspection. It’s time for a paradigm shift and a revolution to protect future generations. If Deming could help us now!

Larry T Barnard, PMP, PMI-RMP, IISPM Practitioner

ceo & principal architect

larry@iispm.com

The New Industrial Revolution

lbarnardltre — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 01:11:35 +0000

The New Industrial Revolution

A foundational book on sustainability that you should add to your library is Natural Capitalism. It describes how the economy is reliant on our natural resources and how our current industrial capitalism does not consider the impact of natural resources within the accounting of our capital. This book presents the idea of natural capitalism and the need to recognize the influences of our natural resources, social and cultural systems on our capital and how this relationship is necessary in order for business to continue to coexist with our natural resources. The book describes four essential strategies for business including the improvement of manufacturing, the reuse of materials, changing quantity to quality, and restoring and sustaining our resources.
As I continue to elaborate on more ways sustainability can impact an organization, this insight for an upcoming industrial revolution allowed me to really connect the dots on how our overall economic relationship with our resources is poor and its improvement is necessary, not only for the environment but for organizations who want to be successful. Ideally, without these resources, organizations will struggle and perhaps fail to succeed without this substantial support system. The book itemized six assumptions for a possible natural capitalism:
• Availability and functionality of natural capital
• Poorly designed business systems that contain wasteful patterns of consumption
• Requires a market based system of production and distribution so capital can be fully valued
• Resource productivity
• Improve the quality and flow of services rather than the value of services
• Economic and environmental sustainability is crucial by redressing global inequities of income
As I look at how sustainability is being implemented throughout organizations, it is considerably beneficial to focus on how your organization will impact its success. The adaptation to good stewardship of community and environment and new sustainability systems of production and project implementation is essential for organizations. It is time to ask yourself how your organization can better its overall community and environmental impact using sustainability as its guide.
Take a look at this book to learn more about the impacts of natural capitalism and how it can benefit your organization.
Larry T Barnard, PMP, PMI-RMP, Change Management Practitioner
ceo & principal architect
IISPM, International Institute of Sustainability Project Management

http://www.iispm.org/

BOOK: Hawken, P., Lovins, A., & Lovins, L. H. (1999). Natural Capitalism. Little, Brown & Company.

The Positive Business Impacts of Sustainability

lbarnardltre — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 04:47:54 +0000

Everyone seems interested in sustainability these days, from big-box retailers to city governments, colleges and universities. I am also a believer in sustainability and particularly in sustainability as a new knowledge area for project managers.
As the world continues to pursue conservation and environmental projects to protect our planet, businesses and their projects are now using these methods to play their role in its conservation and use. As businesses focus on “going green”, they enforce sustainability on their organization to reduce energy use, costs, waste, and other environmental factors. Sustainability principles and methods may have a positive effect on organizations that are already doing what they can to help the community and the environment. For example, many businesses are already recycling or lowering their emissions. Many consumers and stakeholders increasingly expect to see sustainability initiatives; as such, sustainability has become a new part of the strategic, tactical and operational environment of many businesses. This raises some interesting questions. Why should you adopt these principles and methods alongside your other ongoing programs, projects and operational work? Aren’t you busy enough already?
I think that sustainability principles and methods should be adopted and integrated into more than one aspect of your business and across many levels of your organization. Sustainability includes consideration and involvement of the community as well as conserving the environment; however, it can also be successfully used when developing new initiatives or projects. According to a great book I recently read, The Business Guide to Sustainability, some of the benefits of adopting sustainability methods in your business and your projects include:
• Reducing energy, waste, and costs
• Differentiating yourself from your competition
• Getting one step ahead of the regulatory curve
• Promoting creative innovations for new products or processes
• Expanding to new markets by promoting more cost effective way to develop and sell products.
Sustainability and the drive to “go green and conserve” enables an organization to attract new employees, shareholders and customers who share these same values. This can improve the public’s view of your business and your products, and be a positive impact to your bottom line over time. The impact of sustainability on your projects and your processes can also be positive in both the short- and long-term.
Have a look at the book and take a look at our website, www.isspm.org, and start considering the benefits of incorporating sustainability principles and methods into your business and all its pieces and parts.
Larry T Barnard, PMP, PMI-RMP, Change Management Practitioner
ceo & principal architect
IISPM, International Institute of Sustainability Project Management
Hitchcock, Darcy E. and Willard, Marsha L. The Business Guide to Sustainability: Pratical Strategies and Tools for Organizations. UK : Earthscan, 2009. Second Edition.

http://www.amazon.ca/gp/reader/1844077667/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link

Managing Stakeholders that Don’t Have a Voice

lbarnardltre — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 14:30:06 +0000

Stakeholder management is always performed within the context of the organizational environment. The project management community exists within this context. There is always an organizational power structure within and without the project management community, and no matter how flat an organization is, it still tends to be top down within the project world.

With that said, I have a question for you, “how do you manage stakeholders that don’t have a voice in your project planning?”

For example:
-the employees that are being downsized or replaced with automation
-the community that is losing the indirect benefits of your office, factory or distribution centre being located in town
-they’re losing the donations to local sports teams, volunteers for the hundred volunteer organizations in town, lunch money from the genesis of lunch time diners and shoppers
-the neighborhood that is being devalued or re-located due to a shift in corporate development
-the disabled within the community that can’t compete for your ever changing requirements for staff that enable you to, “remain competitive in the marketplace!”

In some cases, those without a voice step up and demand a say. One of my friends was involved in the downsizing of a large steel manufacturing plant in the US. The employees got together with their unions, rallied their financial capital and bought the plant. Not only did they disagree with the corporate leadership, but they were able to do something about it.

This is rare in the world of projects. In most cases there is no representative to stand up for the unseen stakeholder who simply wasn’t invited to the planning meetings.

My suggestion is that you encourage your organization to develop a policy of stewardship based on principles of fairness, community involvement and social responsibility. Give those unseen stakeholders a voice. Enable them to have an input on the outcome of your projects and the impact of your organization.

At a lower level, some of these stakeholders can be incorporated into your project charter and possibly be represented by a focus group or through a survey. If it isn’t a priority to include these stakeholders, they simply won’t have a voice, and the outcome of your projects may be entirely different.

Larry T Barnard
follow Larry at http://iispm.com

Project Sustainability Part: 4

lbarnardltre — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:08:34 +0000

My last couple blogs have focused on the topic of sustainability. I am currently working with a group of consultants to develop international standards for incorporating sustainability into “how” we manage projects.
The Project Management Institute (PMI) is starting to promote ideas and discussions along these lines as well. If you’re interested in following what PMI is doing, along with further blogs on the topic from myself and other professionals around the world, go to:

http://www.pmi.org/Professional-Development/Career-Central/In-Action-PMI-Project-Management-Global-Sustainability-Community-of-Practice.aspx

Larry T Barnard
You can follow Larry at http://larrytbarnard.com

Project Sustainability Part:3

lbarnardltre — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 20:26:13 +0000

I would like to continue my blog on communication management and sustainability within the project lifecycle. In my last two blogs I started this conversation on sustainability within projects.
I’ve already discussed the initial communication planning and the typical kick-off meeting. Now, let’s look at the planning and execution phases of the project. On average, the projects that have the highest amount of waste surrounding communication processes are projects constrained by regulatory compliance, quality assurance and any other type of checks and balance. These projects require many sign-offs and documentation that’s backed up. This process costs time and money. Arguably it has to be done. The question is, “can we fulfill these demands in a more sustainable way?” A great deal of paper trail is created world wide as plans are created, checked and double checked. After we base line our plans, we manage ongoing change with additional paper, wasted ink, extensive storage space, overloaded e-mail inboxes and ongoing meetings.
Earlier this year, I was involved in discussions around paper documentation stored for approved work within petroleum plants across Canada. Due to regulatory compliance, the standard approach was to print paperwork for every work package for every person, for every day in every plant. Each piece of paper had to be duplicated, signed and stored in a library. The problem was that thirty years of paper was adding up in physical storage space and the basic need for librarians. The question was asked, “Can we switch to digital documentation?” This single question caused a title wave of discussions and negotiations across the planet. From a regulatory stand point, can we use digital documentation? What type of document management system should we use?
Today, many organizations around the world have switched to digital document management systems. Signatures are collected on tablets and stored on databases. This dramatically reduces paper usage, ink supplies, square footage of storage space, and unnecessary redundancies. Entire libraries are now available through share-point sites and custom management systems. In addition, we now have many social media tools. These tools enable collocation of data around the world, wikis, various types of threaded discussions, net-meetings, and virtual teams working in every time zone around the planet.
There are many tools that can help make our projects more sustainable. The world is adapting as we speak. I spent last week consulting for the government of PEI in Canada. They have attracted organizations from around the world that provide services remotely. Although east coast fishing is declining, high-tech business is growing. A sustainable approach is not only helping the ecological environment of PEI, it is also helping grow the local economy. Local economies around the world need to be revitalized, but that’s another blog.
Larry T Barnard
You can follow Larry at http://larrytbarnard.com

Sustainability on Projects: Part 2

lbarnardltre — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 02:26:12 +0000

In my last blog I introduced the topic of sustainability and project management. I discussed how to incorporate sustainability processes into the life cycle of a project. My first area of discussion was communication planning.

To continue the discussion, I would like to add a few more layers to communication planning. Typically we’ll map out the stakeholders of a project and assess their involvement in the project. Based on this assessment, we’ll build a communication plan, incorporating who we need to communicate with, how we need to communicate, and what tools we intend to use to communicate.

In most cases, we have stakeholders that are located remotely to us. Communication with these stakeholders requires an ongoing mixture of e-mails, net-meetings, conference calls, direct phone calls, and person to person. The question is, how are we managing this communication and is it sustainable?

Lets look at waste within our processes and tools. Do we waste anything within our ongoing communication? Surveys suggest that managers within North America receive an average of about 250-300 e-mails a day. Most of the e-mails received are copies of copies, digital back-ups, legal checks, cc’s and bcc’s. All of this is done in the name of “due diligence.” Is it necessary? In many cases the answer is, “no!” However, general practice suggests that if you’re not sure whether or not you should send someone something, send it anyways.
The results are bandwidth problems, server capacity problems, hard-drive capacity problems, infrastructure problems and general product functionality demands. All of these technologies require power and basic chemical composition of hardware components comprised of many petrochemical sub-components and materials from war torn countries. All of which break “sustainability” rules. To be good stewards of “sustainability,” we need to reduce waste, use chemical products and bi-products that are ecologically friendly, have little to no petrochemical components, and are purchased from areas of the world that are politically stable, and the ecology and community are in no way exploited.

Ask yourself whether the tools that your project community uses to communicate meet these rules of “sustainability.” If you can’t honestly say that you adhere to these rules, are the true costs of your project reflected in your project plans and communicated openly to all stakeholders, including the community at large?

Larry T Barnard
follow Larry at http://larrytbarnard.com

Project Sustainability Part: 1

lbarnardltre — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 00:58:09 +0000

This is a call for feedback from project managers around the world. I’m working on a sustainability project. Some of our focus is on things like reducing waste and reducing the quantity of resources used, among other concerns. What I would like to know from our international audience of project managers is, “what kinds of waste do you see on projects that could possibly be reduced with proper oversight and planning?” When I mention waste, I’m referring to the types of waste associated to “how” you run your projects, and “not” the waste associated to the products or outcomes of your projects.

Lets take a look at our projects from the perspective of activities performed. One activity in particular that is part of every project is communication. How does the act of communication use, utilize or waste resources and/or assets available to us.

To analyze this I would like to walk through some if the typical tools and techniques used in and around communication on a typical medium sized project with an international team or group of stakeholders.

A simple sequence of events that we build communication around on a project would be initiating, planning, executing, monitoring and closing. With that said, one of the first things that we do is hold a kick-off meeting to develop a project charter and introduce the team to one another. When you have an international team, the benefits of building relationships, report, trust, etc. can be massive. However, what is the cost? There are many.
Stakeholders on our projects travel in cars, trains planes and ships. Every current mode of transportation uses an exorbitant amount of fuel, typically a petroleum based fuel. These fuels result in a large carbon footprint and cause a multitude of ecological damage. Additionally, most of the fuels that we use are limited, and we have no long term plan to replace them. The true cost of these limited resources is not reflected in our business plans.
Travel also results in a great deal of down time while individuals are in transit. This represents another area of waste that is not typically tracked. Nonetheless, we are used to dealing with the ramifications of delays in decision making, and schedule chaos.

Question: “Does travel require additional tools, not otherwise needed? Do we really need all the telecommunications tools available to us? If we worked from a home office, or simply commuted into a local office with landlines and hardwired internet capabilities, would we still need blackberry’s, i-pads, wireless laptops, etc.? Could we simplify the array of tools that we use and the infrastructure that we tie into?” I think we could.

Let’s continue our conversation in my next blog. In the meantime, send me your comments and concerns and practical experience around projects with respects to the topic of discussion.

Larry T Barnard
follow Larry at http://larrytbarnard.com

EVM in the Real World: Part III

lbarnardltre — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 00:34:54 +0000

In my last blog I discussed challenges to using earned value management tools to track progress on projects. In particular, I suggested that some of the challenges are posed by things like the complexity and/or type of work required.
The complexity and/or type of work will have a direct impact on the level of difficulty tracking progress. If you only have two or three tasks that you are expected to progress on a linear schedule, then you’ll have a relatively easy job tracking. When you have hundreds of tasks with people spread across the organization, and/or including outside vendors that do not progress in a linear fashion, you can expect to have your work cut out for you.
Some of the typical variables that you’ll have to consider:
o Ramp up time to start work
o Required training prior to work
o Learning curve expected for the type of work
o Special design challenges of the work
o Integration with other projects often increases complexity
o Integration with green fields projects or any new and untested technology
o Work that is under a regulatory micro-scope
o Work that is highly visible to senior executives and/or the community
o Particular quality design challenges
o Loss of life challenges with the use of equipment
o Any required safety training and regulatory compliance demands
o Logistics for receipts of materials
o Delays caused by long lead items ordered for project
o Quality assurance activities that may cause delays
o Decision making architecture that results in natural time delays
o Vendor delays
o Union demands that may delay work, like contract negotiations
o Weather complications
As I said in my last blog, all of these things will require time on the schedule. When we’re planning work, we review all of these variables and consider any others that may be particular to this project, and then we try to translate these challenges into calendar time, and in some cases, risk and costs. As a result, typically none of these things will progress in a linear fashion and must be tracked in unique ways that translate into reality. When your tracking tools do not align well with the type of work being performed, then the reports tend to look like mere shadows of reality.
Each of these variables must be dealt with individually. In some cases you may simply add a little extra time to a task, in other cases you may need to break a task into sub-parts, and perform qualitative analysis on each component. In addition, I suggest performing three point estimates on each component, and incorporating risk analysis. In addition to your risk analysis, you may need to add risk response plans.
In some cases your risk analysis and risk response planning will result in added time and contingency, in other cases it will add tasks to your project plan. All in all, these added steps will give you a much more realistic picture of where you need to be and how track progress across your subsequent plans.
Larry T Barnard
You can follow Larry at http://larrytbarnard.com

EVM in the Real World: Part II

lbarnardltre — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 00:33:59 +0000

In my last blog I discussed challenges to using earned value management tools to track progress on projects. In particular, I suggested that some of the challenges are posed by things like the number of tasks, and the number of people.
The number of tasks and consequent number of people has a direct impact on the level of difficulty tracking progress. If you only have two or three tasks with a few people that are expected to progress on a linear schedule, then you’ll have a relatively easy job tracking. When you have hundreds of tasks with people spread across the organization, and/or including outside vendors that do not progress in a linear fashion, you can expect to have your work cut out for you.
Some of the typical variables that you’ll have to consider:
o Ramp up time to start work
o Required training prior to work
o Learning curve expected for the type of work
o Any required safety training and regulatory compliance demands
o Logistics for receipts of materials
o Set-up of temporary work stations
o Security procedures and password allocations
o Delays caused by long lead items ordered for project
o Quality assurance activities that may cause delays
o Decision making architecture that results in natural time delays
o Holiday schedule for staffing
o Holiday schedule for vendors
o Vendor delays
o Union demands that may delay work, like contract negotiations
o Weather complications
o Theft on project like loss of laptops, cell phones, etc.
All of these things will require time on the schedule. When we’re planning work, we review all of these variables and consider any others that may be particular to this project, and then we try to translate these challenges into calendar time, and in some cases, risk and costs. As a result, typically none of these things will progress in a linear fashion and must be tracked in unique ways that translate into reality. When your tracking tools do not align well with the type of work being performed, then the reports tend to look like mere shadows of reality. In some cases those shadows are a poor reflection of the project. Usually this is because people either haven’t included the above stated variables, or because they’re tracking in a linear fashion, when the work is non-linear.
For non-linear work, I suggest breaking the tasks into smaller segments based on the micro-life cycle of the task. For example, if there is required ramp up time for receipt of materials, training, and general set-up, then break this out as a separate task. Once the work is fully up and running, break the work itself into smaller pieces that make sense. We often have a design phase, testing, build, further testing, regulatory work, quality checks, commissioning, validation, etc. Each component tends to have something unique about it. If you are realistic in your decomposition of the work, you’ll find it easier to track. If and when you’re not sure, bring in the subject matter experts for help.
In my next blog, I’ll propose some additional approaches that will make your life as a pm tolerable.
Larry T Barnard
You can follow Larry at http://larrytbarnard.com