We’re very pleased with the way in which African organizations have accepted the ideas of Sustainability and Project Management.  Very pleased.

We wonder why Africa “gets it” so well and the other continents lag so much further behind.  Any ideas or thoughts?

We’ve been invited to, and accepted, the opportunity to address the Project Management South Africa “Good in Green” conference as well as their National Conference in Johannesburg.  We’ve been featured in several issues of the very classy magazine PM Foresight, endorsed by PMI Lagos, Nigeria and produced for all of Africa by visionary publisher Lambert Ofoegbu.

Sites like AllAfrica-Environment show how many projects are already launched and about to be launched which focus on sustainability.  But what impresses us most is that for some reason, African enterprises have done a better job of listening to our message and have better understood the connection between PM and sustainability.

Europe, Asia, North America, South America…where are you?

In 1979, a paper was published by A. Chapanis, asking the question Quo Vadis, Ergonomia?  (Latin for “Where are you going, Ergonomics?).  It was considered a landmark paper.

Chapanis was trying to challenge his colleagues in ergonomics (the study of human-machine interface and ‘ease of work) to think hard about what their discipline did and didn’t entail and how they could improve the lot not only for people in the field but for all of its stakeholders.

So – what the HECK does any of this have to do with Projects, Programs, Project Managers, or Program Managers?

Alot.

A whole bunch.

Much.

Tons.

You see, today, PMI posted on Facebook the following announcement:

“Get ready…beginning 6 February 2012, you will have the opportunity to participate in the update of two key PMI Standards. Visit the Exposure Draft page in the Standards section of PMI in February to view and comment on The Standard for Program Standard—Third Edition and A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide)—Fifth Edition.”

 THIS IS A CHANCE TO HELP TELL PMI ABOUT THE DIRECTION OF OUR DISCIPLINE.

Let’s take advantage of it.

Here is a link to the standards exposure page:

http://www.pmi.org/PMBOK-Guide-and-Standards/Standards-Exposure-Drafts.aspx

Mark your calendar now – for February 6.  Mark it to remind yourself to begin the review of the documents.  Of course, we’d encourage you to review them to assure that the documents take into account the long-term, sustainable view of project management we’ve been discussing with you ad nauseum (keeping the Latin theme here) since we started with a couple of hundred hits per month on this site (we’re now averaging 40-50 thousand).

They didn’t specify when the exposure period ends.  That’s why it’s critical that you initiate a Start-Start dependency with February 6 and review/comment as soon as they’re available for exposure draft.

Thanks for your attention.

This is a brief, but (we think) interesting post.

It’s about air.  Not just any air, the air in China.

Now I’ve been to China, visiting Hong Kong and Beijing in 1999.  It was a great trip, but I noted even back then, that Beijing had a brownish tinge to it.  A haze of smog was ever-present in the city.  And that was then.  The growth in vehicle and power use since then has been immense.

So, it can only be worse now – and it was bad then, I can tell you from experience.

So where is the irony?  Well, as you know, China’s economy has grown and they’re becoming a leader in alternative energy manufacturing.  And, China has recognized the problem of air pollution, setting aggressive goals for renewable energy sources.

In this story from yesterday’s Boston Globe, learn about A123 and AMSC, and how their alternative energy projects born in the Boston area, but deployed in China, are challenging US companies to take advantage of this craving for clean air.

It’s been a very interesting and wonderful year for us.  We’ve gained a lot of new friends along the way.  We also know that some of the issues we talk about can get a little “heavy” at times.  So we wanted to share with you a little video that was sent to us to say thank you to all of you who follow us on Twitter and Facebook, and enjoy our posts.  Please continue to add your input.

And to all our friends, old and new, world-wide, we think you’ll get a big kick out of this.  Happy New Year to all from Rich and Dave at EarthPM!!

Click Here to Enjoy

We’ve tend to stay neutral when it comes to the global climate change debate, although we have tried to arm you with the information we believed you, as project managers, need to make sure you can take advantage of any projects that may arise as a result of any mitigation strategies.  Today, we heard about a couple of disturbing reports due out over the next several months.  Their titles were pretty ominous so we decided to dig a little deeper.

Take a look at some of these headlines and reports to be released and see if you don’t agree that they are unnerving;

NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries 

Earth has been growing warmer for more than 50 years.

And this one a report that is indicative of what is to come.

The Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation.

The title says that those extreme events we have been experiencing, a major snow storm in the northeast in October 2011 for instance, are going to continue and we need a risk mitigation process to address them.  Further, we will need to “adapt” to these changes.

Another report coming from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC);

Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation

And finally, an interview from a scientist who has not only been one of the questioners of global climate change, but also his study was partially funded by an organization made up of climate change skeptics.  Dr. Richard Muller, professor of physics from the University of California, Berkeley, and founder of the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature Foundation, undertook an independent two year study of global climate change.

It was not that he himself was a sceptic, he just didn’t believe the likes of Tom Friedman and Al Gore because Dr. Muller believes their contentions were not truly science based.  Here is part of the interview between Dr. Muller and Eleanor Hall with Bronwyn Herbert from the Australian Broadcast Network (ABC).  You can hear the entire interview here.

BRONWYN HERBERT: Richard Muller says he wasn’t convinced the earth was warming, and set out two years ago to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong.

RICHARD MULLER: Sceptics had raised legitimate questions. Many of the thermometers were of very poor quality and poorly placed. There were  djustments being made to discontinuities in the data. There was perhaps undue influence from warming of cities, which was warm, but that’s not global warming.

BRONWYN HERBERT: He says he was particularly surprised that his results so closely correlated with previously published data from other teams in the US and the UK.

RICHARD MULLER: Somewhat to my amazement, none of the effects changed the answer. We wound up getting the same answer that the other groups had previously gotten for the amount of warming. It’s about 0.9 degrees Celsius over the last 50 years. The poor temperature quality data, even though it was at bad locations, the change in temperature I recorded was accurate. The urban heat island, just not that much area of the earth is urban. The temperature adjustments that people made, well those adjustments were made with more care than we could know, and in the end the adjustments didn’t bias the data. We picked five times as many stations as they did. Their selection of stations was sufficiently representative that it didn’t change the answer. So, in the end, the amount of global warming is what they said it was.

BRONWYN HERBERT: So do you now believe that global warming on earth is occurring?

RICHARD MULLER: Oh yes. I certainly believe that now.

And finally, from a report Agence France-Presse (AFP) states that a draft UN report three years in the making concludes that man-made climate change has boosted the frequency or intensity of heat waves, wildfires, floods and cyclones and that such disasters are likely to increase in the future.

“The document being discussed by the world’s Nobel-winning panel of climate scientists says the severity of the impacts vary, and some regions are more vulnerable than others. Hundreds of scientists working under the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) will vet the phonebook-sized draft at a meeting in Kampala of the 194-nation body later this month.

“This is the largest effort that has even been made to assess how extremes are changing,” said Neville Nicholls, a professor at Monash University in  Melbourne, Australia, and a coordinating lead author of one of the review’s key chapters. Mindful of an outcry by climate skeptics over flaws in an earlier IPCC text, those working on the document stress that the level of “confidence” in the findings depends on the quantity and quality of data available.

But the overall picture that emerges is one of enhanced volatility and frequency of dangerous weather, leading in turn to a sharply increased risk for large swathes of humanity in coming decades.”

“Its publication coincides with a series of natural catastrophes around the world that have boosted the need to determine whether such events are freaks of the weather or part of a long-term shift in climate. In 2010, record temperatures fuelled devastating forest fires across Siberia, while parts of Pakistan and India reeled from unprecedented flooding. This year, the United States has suffered from a record number of billion-dollar disasters ranging from flooding in the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers to Hurricane Irene to the ongoing Texas drought. Large swathes of China are suffering from intense drought as well, even as central America and Thailand count their dead from recent diluvian rains.

Most of these events match predicted impacts of manmade global warming, which has raised temperatures, increased the amount of water in the atmosphere and warmed ocean surface temperatures — all drivers of extreme weather.

- It is “virtually certain” — 99-100% sure — that the frequency and magnitude of warm daily temperature extremes will increase over the 21st century on a global scale;

- It is “very likely” (90-100% certainty) that the length, frequency and/or intensity of warm spells, including heat waves, will continue to increase over most land areas;

- Peak temperatures are “likely” (66-100% certainty) to increase — compared to the late 20th century — up to 3.0 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2050, and 5.0 C (9.0 F) by 2100;

- Heavy rain and snowfall is likely to increase over the next century over many regions, especially in the tropics and at high latitudes;

- At the same time, droughts will likely intensify in other areas, notably the Mediterranean region, central Europe, North America, northeastern Brazil and southern Africa.” © 2011 AFP

—Courtesy of http://www.xkcd.com

It is hard to stay objective and talk about cradle-to-cradle thinking and considering long term effects, “the end of the end”, and other assertions from our book, when there is a major effect on one of our national treasures, The Yellowstone River, the longest undammed river in the US.  We have a personal affinity toward the river since one of our EarthPM principles spent 11 days in the area doing what is affectionately called “combat fly fishing.”  In other words, 11 days were spent fly fishing as many rivers and streams in Montana, Idaho , and Wyoming that is humanly possible fishing from dawn to dark, while passing peanut butter and jelly sandwiches from the back seat to the front during the breaks between fishing and fishing called “racing to a new spot.”  A few hours sleep and  right back at it.  But of all the waters fished, the Yellowstone was one of the most incredible fisheries, to say nothing of the beauty.

Of course, the river was nothing like it is right now (see picture above of how it was when we fished it), with gigantic flows spilling over the banks, running between 25,000 and 35,000 cubic feet per second.  The normal rate is around 8,000 cfs.  That’s good news and bad news.  The good news is that there is lots of water to dilute the oil.  And, while this oil spill is relatively small compared to some of the oil spills of the past, 42,000 gallons, or approximately 1000 barrels, is enough.  What is disconcerting is not the short-term effects, but rather the long term-effects on both wildlife and property.  Sound familiar.  We assert that we can no longer take the short term view.  We were not involved in Exxon Mobil’s decision making process when someone thought it was a good idea to bury a pipeline under one of the premier trout waters in America, we can only hope that they did consider what would happen not only if there should be a breach in the pipe, but also the life cycle assessment of that oil should it be unleashed on the ecosystem.

The bad news is that the long term effects of a spill of this nature are virtually unknown.  Add to that, the high water has pushed the oil up onto surrounding properties where it is pooling.  It is likely that the pooled oil will seep into the ground possible contaminating area water wells.  While Yellowstone National Park and the areas where we fished are not threatened, because the spill is approximately 110 miles downstream, it still affects a “fly fishing and bird watching” area.   “Montana Audubon — a nonprofit that specializes in wildlife conservation, especially birds — fears for the health of the American white pelican, a top-of-the-food chain species that dines on critters in the river. “We may get lucky with the short-term effects” because birds weren’t using their normal river habitat due to the high water, said Darcie Vallant, director of the Audubon Conservation Education Center in Billings, which is just 10 miles from the spill. “But the concern is long-term effects,” especially with the pelicans, she added. Montana had some 7,000 breeding pairs in 2010, and that was a decline from the previous year, she said.”

The high water has also made it impossible to assess what’s happening to that ecosystem.  How the bug population that the trout rely upon for food is affected is another unknown.  There is also a concern about the back channels that hold fish eggs and recently hatched fish being contaminated.

Montana State University researchers will be among those monitoring the river, but it could take months before they have a sense of the recovery’s pace. “In the weeks and months ahead, we will be looking for any unusual changes in the river’s natural environment and any impacts on the species of fish we would expect to find at this time of year,” said MSU ecology professor Al Zale. “Some species or ages of fish may be more susceptible to this type of pollution than others.”

Cathy Williams, who raises livestock, wheat, alfalfa and hay with her husband near Laurel, said high water washed oil across much of their 800 acres. “It was the night the river peaked, so the river water was flooded all over the place, and that brought oil all over both ranches,” she said. “All of our grasslands have just thick, black crude stuck to all the grass, trees, low lands.”  Williams said their spring wheat crop and alfalfa are both in need of irrigation, but farmers in the area were advised not to take water from the river for the time being. Drinking supplies also are in limbo, she said. “We get all our drinking water from our wells and for our animals,” Williams said. “All the groundwater, I assume, is probably contaminated. We just don’t know.”

With 20/20 hindsight, and a request for consideration for future planning, there are several places in the project life cycle that greenality issues can be considered:

• Project Charter – connecting enterprise sustainability with project
• Requirements Gathering – again, connecting the enterprise’s environmental management plan(EMP) with the project’s EMP
• Stakeholder Consideration – is there a communications plan in place to notify the stakeholders if this type of issue should occur
• Risk Management – considering environmental risks
• Cost of Greenality – failure costs versus auditing costs for instance

I am sure you can think of more areas where sustainability should be considered.  All in all, we are hoping for a good outcome, here.  The river has an incredible beauty about it.  Let’s not forget that the trout fishing in Montana is a major contributor to the $300 million in revenues from the recreation industry in the state. And, the Yellowstone is also historically very significant.  In late June/early July of 1876, the Far West, a specially designed river vessel, transported the wounded from the campaign against the Indians which included Custer’s Last Stand, down the Yellowstone to the Missouri River and to Bismarck in the Dakota Territories.  Let’s hope for the best here and for long-term, sustainability thinking to prevail for future projects, including those that involve our rare and fragile natural resources.

(Thanks to Msnbc.com’s Miguel Llanos, Reuters and The Associated Press for information included in this blog.)

In “Trend Watch” – a section of PMI’s PM Network® magazine, this month, we found Roberto Toledo once again speaking with concise lucidity * about a topic near and dear to our hearts.  We got permission (and even encouragement) from Roberto to quote from the article.  The article itself of course, is copyright  ©PMI 2011, all rights reserved.

In the article, “Bridging the Strategy Gap“, Roberto agrees with our previous post in which we reference Stanford University’s Strategic Execution Framework.

In both cases, projects, programs and portfolios are the bridge between Strategy and Operations.

Roberto says:  “Each strategic plan is as unique as the organization that creates it, but all should include standard elements such as the company’s mission, vision, and values.  (These become) specific operational goals – translating the strategy into a portfolio of projects.”

The mission, vision, and values piece is what Stanford calls Ideation.  The operations are jointly referred to by this article and the Stanford Execution Framework, and what’s in the middle in both cases  is projects.

Let’s take a side step.  Mind the gap!

Do you remember Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz?  In particular, do you recall her footwear?  No Jimmy Choos for Dorothy, and no Keds either.

What was she wearing?  Ruby slippers.  And do you remember what the Good Witch of the North told her?  She told Dorothy that she had the power to go home all along.  She just had to click her heels together three times…

What project managers must understand – is that they (effectively) are in this gap.  They are the bridge.  And they are wearing ruby slippers (yes, even the guys…)

Click on the Ruby Slippers to see the scene from Wizard of Oz…

Anyway, we as project managers have significant power – all along – to use that power to meet project objectives, gain stakeholder agreement, and to drive sustainability goals which are likely in the company’s mission, vision and values, and if the company is worth it’s leadership, have found their way into the strategy (and therefore are not lofty statements made only to make concerned citizens feel better).

*you will need to be logged into PMI’s site to see the online PM Network Article

It’s Stanley Cup Finals time.

Hockey is a rough game, and hits and checking are part of the game.  In this posting you see a photo of the Bruins’ Nathan Horton, who took a vicious blind-side hit knocking him unconscious and jeopardizing his career and taking this important clutch player out of the Stanley Cup finals.  His opponent, Aaron Rome, is also suspended for the rest of the year (and perhaps into next year if the Finals end early).

Not a good thing for sports fans – at least real sports fans.  Play hockey, gentlemen.

So what could this possibly have to do with projects, project management, or the triple bottom line?

As you know, one aspect of the triple bottom line is the environment, and one aspect of the environment has got to be concern for climate change.

In the same Boston Globe that is covering the hockey games mentioned above, there is an editorial in today’s paper called “Playing Rough”.  And there’s the link.  The article talks about the hits that climate scientists take when their research points to climate changes caused by humans.  They get hit blindsided just as did Nathan Horton.

In particular, the editorial covers the “hits” put on (generally) well-respected climate scientist Raymond Bradley, and with another connection to the Stanley Cup, his “hockey stick” graph that shows increases in global temperature that can be connected with industrial activity.  Bradley, who had had enough bullying by politicians, recently wrote a book on the topic, and his experiences, “Global Warming and Political Intimidation: How Politicians Cracked Down as the Earth Heated Up”

With this posting we don’t mean to take sides as much as to request that we as business people do not act like Aaron Rome.  Wait a moment before the attack.  Is it worth jeopardizing TWO careers because you are dead-set against a conclusion, pre-disposed to be in disagreement with it?  Or should you open your mind a bit and consider the analysis provided by a respected scientist?  We vote for the latter.

Have a look at the editorial from today’s Globe, but you can see right there in the 50-ish comments that immediately the discussion becomes polarized, even violent and certainly non-productive.  Let’s stay above the fray.

No biting, no pulling hair, and no blind-side dangerous hits. Okay?

Check.

Several of our last posts have focused on the economic and social responsibility legs of the triple bottom line.  With this post we return to the environmental leg, with a “green by definition” project which was just turned over for operation in sunny Spain.

“Green by definition” is one end of the Green Rainbow we talk about in our book.  These are projects which have as their main outcome an environmental improvement. The other end of the spectrum is “Green in General”, which would be, for example, release 7.4.3.1.4 of your company’s payroll software.  Even those projects, we assert, can benefit from sustainability thinking.  But that’s not the topic of today’s post.  Today we talk about molten salt.

According to a great article in ecoseed.org, “The 19.9-megawatt Gemasolar concentrating solar power plant uses 2,650 flat mirrors called heliostats arranged over 185 hectares of land to heat molten salt. The heliostats focus sunlight on a tower where liquid is heated up to 900 degrees centigrade. It is then stored for later use at above 500 degrees centigrade in tanks beneath the tower.”

Why salt?

Simple physics.  Salt retains heat longer than water.  Read about it at Sandia National Lab’s site.   Here’s a more detailed technical article about a plant to be built in Nevada.

And here’s a diagram of a molten salt solar power generation system.

The lesson for our project managers?  Learn the technology, the vocabulary.  Understand the importance and significance of such projects and be ready (and willing) to take on either a project like this.

Give yourself the opportunity to work on projects like this.