GPM | The home of Sustainable Project Management®

Perspectives · Perspectives

The Climate COP System Needs an Overhaul.

Dr. Joel Carboni November 23, 2022
The 27th UN climate change summit (COP27) in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, was expected to promote climate justice. Like the 26 that preceded it, progress continues at a snail’s pace while climate chaos spirals out of control. There are other COPs that receive little to no attention by the media and business community, such as COP 15 on Biodiversity (this year in Montreal), and the threat of diminished bio-diversity is a much larger threat to humanity.  But that is a topic for another day... I started attending the COP sessions over a decade ago and decided to stop at COP23 in Bonn. Here is me at COP21.  I had a full head of (dark) hair.  I miss those days… Why did I stop attending the Climate COP? It had increasingly become like the environmental version of the World Economic Forum in Davos; a “look at me! I am at COP.  Look how much I care!!” or “You aren’t going to COP? I thought this was your field”.  Yes Yes… There are side meetings and discussions that are valuable, but the only outcome that matters are the treatises and accords (and their adoption).  Everything else is a sideshow, and I got tired of it.  So… I have some thoughts. This was the 27th Climate COP. Twenty-Seven.  Why? CO2 in the atmosphere at the first Climate Summit in 1979 was at 337.1 parts per million (ppm), and today, they are at 416.43 ppm, an increase of 79.33 ppm over those 43 years.  It should be noted that in the 43 years preceding, it increased by 27 ppm.
Note: If you can distinguish between decaffeinated coffee and regular, you can tell the difference between 327ppm and 416.
The Kyoto Protocol didn’t slow emissions, nor did the Copenhagen Accord.  In fact, since the signing of the Copenhagen accord in 2009, we crossed the 400 ppm threshold and continue to trend in the wrong direction.  The Paris accord was heralded, and the Glasgow accord was another positive step, but without accountability, what is the point? Did rising energy prices scare world leaders from taking bold action? To date, the commitments made in Paris six years ago have fallen short of ambitions. They have ultimately been unsuccessful in bringing down overall global emissions, which are at an all-time high in 2022. This year’s agreement failed to go beyond the 2021 Glasgow climate pact’s promise to “phase down unabated coal power.”  It is worth noting that geo-political impacts such as Russia’s war against Ukraine overshadowed the COP and has necessitated the expanded (immediate need) for domestic fossil fuels which didn’t help.  On the other side of the coin, Qatar reportedly spent over $220 Billion to host the world cup. Money is there, just lack of prioritization… Nations clearly can’t agree so let’s flip the script! Companies represent 30 to 40 percent of annual greenhouse gas emissions and of that number 70% are SMEs.  It is time that we change the paradigm and take a bottom-up approach.  We need a movement where large corporations, SMEs, NGOs, civil society, and even investors can play an integral role.  ESG regulations can only take us so far.  We need an inside-out commitment to reducing our impact while simultaneously regenerating biodiversity. I agree with Greta Thunberg who said “As it is now, the COPs are mainly being used as an opportunity for leaders and people in power to get attention when they say, ‘We’re going to change,’ and using many different kinds of greenwashing, lying and cheating and so on.” To do this, the COP system needs to do a few things. 
  • First— it needs to return to its roots and eliminate the circus side-show on-site.  Let’s allow the legislators their space to do their “work” and take all the creative energy for the side events and mobilize regional and national action platforms where all of society can contribute and take ownership.
  • Second — the COP system needs to be held in a location where the sponsoring country is leading efforts to limit green house gas emissions to 1.5º C, not who has the best lobbyists.   COP28 will be in Abu Dhabi...
  • Third — it needs to ensure that the sponsor isn't one of (if not the) largest plastic pushers on the planet.
How about this? Rather than having a two-week conference where the entire world hops a flight to gather, let’s start a grass-roots event where like-minded individuals can engage local leaders, discuss opportunities to decarbonize, learn skills and set targets. Let’s build action platforms that have real impact that roll up to larger national and international goals. Until we do, we can always expect there to be another Climate COP, until there can’t be. We want to do something. Who wants to join us?

Perspectives · ESG

Where ESG and Sustainability Dovetail

David Smyth November 21, 2022
GPM has been working with global organizations for 13 years to help them achieve and implement sustainability goals and practices. In the past few years, we have seen Environment, Social, and Governance, or ESG, enter the lexicon and transform the narrative around an organization's risk profile and relationship with the environment. Make no mistake, ESG has been, and will continue to be, a welcome and positive force that has added a significant spotlight to the existential issue of climate change and the global movement toward Net Zero. What we at GPM see as a common mistake is conflating ESG with Sustainability. To be blunt, they are not the same. Much like chocolate and peanut butter, ESG and Sustainability are two separate and individually powerful ingredients that, when combined, make a perfectly blended approach to improving an organization's environmental performance and stakeholder value.    It is essential to establish the main principles of ESG and Sustainability to understand how they differ.  Environmental Social Governance ESG is an investment framework that assists external investors to assess an organization's performance and risk. Capital investment companies, most notably BlacKRock, are now using this framework to inform every potential investment decision they make.  Sustainability Sustainability is based on a simple principle: Everything that we need for our survival and well-being depends, either directly or indirectly, on our natural environment. To pursue Sustainability is to create and maintain the conditions under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony to support present and future generations. Investments, such as a municipality electrifying their public transportation bus fleet or a property management company installing energy-efficient LED light bulbs.     It is in understanding the more nuanced differences between ESG and Sustainability where we see how they dovetail together in order to accelerate organizational environmental imperatives and combat Climate Change. Where ESG is about identifying risks and issues, Sustainability is about results.     ESG manages the issues for how they affect organizational performance, while Sustainability manages the organization for how it affects the issues. While ESG measures outputs, Sustainability measures outcomes and impacts. ESG takes an outside-in focus on financial materiality, i.e., the impact of environmental and social issues on the organization, whereas Sustainability takes an inside-out focus on impact materiality, i.e., the impact of the organization on the environment and society. By combining ESG's outside-in and Sustainability's inside-out approach, you get a full 360° view of how an organization both accounts for and mitigates risks through meaningful operational improvements and sustainable performance. With ESG reporting increasingly becoming an imperative, it is the financial and impact, or dual materiality, that will differentiate organizations who are making true environmental and social impact versus those who are merely greenwashing. 
As projects are projected to comprise of more than 57% of Global GDP by 2030, Project communications will become increasingly more important to ESG Reporting.
  Fortunately, GPM and our partners have a full suite of services developed to help produce this dual materiality. Tools such as PSM3, The P5 Impact Analysis, and GPM360° Project Certification measure organizational impacts through lenses of People, Plant and Prosperity to measure the product and its development process against up to 230 different sustainability criteria.  By standardizing on and utilizing these tools, and getting your staff Trained in Sustainable Project Management and certified with the GPM-b, organizations can track the environmental impact of their projects quantitively and input those metrics directly into the double materiality for their enhanced ESG reporting.   Organizations that capture this materiality in their standard processes and project documentation save time and create efficiencies in their reporting. Most importantly, dual materiality acts as a shield against potential claims of greenwashing, as all the KPIs are tracked and captured throughout the project and asset lifecycle. Or, more simply put, it accurately and explicitly tracks and measures an organization's ESG and Sustainability commitments, outputs, and contributions to Net Zero!
ESG Sustainability Sustainability Reporting Projects Reporting sustainability

Perspectives · Leadership

Project Sponsors are the Key to Unlocking the Potential of Sustainable Project Management

Dr. Joel Carboni October 12, 2022
In recent months, there has been an uptick in interest in sustainable project management.  In 2022, GPM has seen a 20% increase in downloads of our P5 Standard for sustainable project management. GPM training, both in person and online, is growing in popularity, as evident in the growth of certification numbers this year. Additionally, the number of International Project Management forums, symposiums, and conferences that have made sustainability a central theme are very encouraging. Ten years ago, sustainable projects and sustainable project management were merely topics at conferences, relegated to “other interests” . In the early days, Individuals such as Tom Mochal, Gilbert Silvius, Ron Schipper, Richard Maltzman, Dave Shirley were the most outspoken advocates on this topic (and continue to be). Of course, we at GPM have been with them beating this drum loudly since 2009... I believe that thanks to all of our combined efforts, coupled with the advancing impacts of climate chaos and the awareness brought to the mainstream by international treaties and the SDGs, the profession is awakening to the reality that projects and project management are crucial to advancing regenerative development. But… The movement to advance sustainable project management needs an unsung hero, and that hero is none other than the project sponsor. You know… the person who gets voluntold (being told you are being volunteered) to sponsor a project, given little to no training, very little support, but is reassured with a high five at the kick-off meeting and then is never heard from again.  Ok… This is oozing with hyperbole, but I’m not that far off, am I? The Global Alliance for the Project Professions or GAPPS published a guiding framework for project sponsors in 2015, and it was nothing short of brilliant.  We use it all the time here at GPM.  In this framework, they define the sponsor as “...an individual who may be called funder, owner, client, senior responsible owner. The person appointed as a sponsor typically has a permanent position within the organization." "The role of project sponsor is generally considered an additional, part-time role.” That last sentence, “additional, part time role”, is one of the core reasons why sponsors are often found on wanted posters like this one.     Sponsors need for support must be recognized and acted upon now.  With Project work estimated at 57% of global GDP in 2022, the emphasis and reliance on projects has never been higher. GAPPS further states that “the organization’s governance practices should make it clear who the sponsor is, how the sponsor is selected, their accountabilities, and responsibilities as well as the relationships between the sponsor and the project manager and between the project and the business. Governance practices should ensure that the sponsor "has authority, credibility, and/or position necessary to perform the role.” Establishing the right relationships, using the authority to move change forward, and having the position from which to do it effectively are critical to project success. In our method we add one little wrinkle, and it has to do with positioning.   The image above is borrowed from the refreshed ISO 21502 (Guidance on Project Management).  In the ISO version, the project sponsor circle is above the project manager.  I understand why they did that.  If you refer to the GAPPS text, “the sponsor funder, owner, client, senior responsible owner” hierarchically, it makes sense to put the sponsor above the PM.  However, in practice, as project managers are starting to make the move from the cellar to the C-suite (thank you Adam Boddison for that phrase) and are becoming more strategic in nature, the sponsor and PM relationship must also evolve into a peer-partnership. In Projects integrating Sustainable Methods (PRiSM), outlined in our book Sustainable Project Management, we advocate that during the pre-project phase, the sponsor and PM are selected and at that time begin their collaboration (see below). You can also get this nifty book on amazon in hard copy or kindle, or direct download as a PDF here…

The PRiSM Method's Pre-Project Phase flow

I get it, sponsors are important and they aren’t given enough support.  What is your point?

One of the largest challenges in advancing sustainable project management is what is referred to as “the sustainability premium”.  This is the false notion that sustainability costs more. Fun fact, if you understand benefits management and benefits realization, it is clear that sustainability is an investment that pays for itself over and over again, so “costs more” is a red herring. The challenge is very real however.  And due to this, we need to do two things.
  1. Project managers must provide sponsors with the information to make informed decisions to advocate on the project’s behalf. If done correctly, we can ensure that the right resources are in place to mitigate social, environmental, and economic risks so that project processes as well as the project outcome are sustainable.
  2. We must provide education and training on sustainability to project sponsors so they can effectively connect the project to organizational sustainability strategy and advocate for project work as materiality in ESG and sustainability reporting.
It is time to bring the sponsor role out from the shadows and adorn the role with the importance that it holds.
Leadership P5 Project Management Sponsorship Sustainability

Perspectives · Leadership

Where should sustainability fit within the realm of projects, new products and service delivery?

Dr. Joel Carboni June 6, 2022

Truthfully, it should be near the top. But sustainability encompasses so many facets, and knowing where and how to start can be challenging. Historically, in the corporate world, sustainability is a word that has often been used to describe business programs, products, and practices related to environmental and social considerations.

Until recently, sustainability was viewed as a luxury investment. In the past ten years, this notion has evolved, and what was once a “nice to have” is now a “must-have”. It isn't enough.

While corporate sustainability efforts have gained significant momentum in the last 10 years, the factors that drive them range considerably. Ideally, an organization's approach to sustainability is purpose-driven or altruistic in practice. Sometimes, the journey can be jumpstarted by unexpected external events or motivated by fiscal or regulatory pressures or reporting requirements as depicted in the figure above.

Whether an organization's sustainability strategy is driven by risk mitigation or the desire to be an industry pacesetter, a key driver for success is to what degree they can clearly define their sustainability objectives, align them to the business, establish a supportive culture, and achieve success using portfolio, program, and project management as the delivery method.

Project Management is the key to delivering on business objectives and Driving Sustainable Change

Leading companies pursue sustainability because it has a positive financial impact, and for most companies, sustainability is usually somewhere on the corporate agenda. There are often problems with execution, even for the most committed companies.

GPM research found that 97% of executives believe that projects and project management are integral to sustainable development. At the same time, PMI Research shows that almost 40% of organizations report significant barriers to improving social impact, with just 33% of projects delivering improvements for the environment.

Removing the barriers of improving social and environmental impact will require organizations to strategically align organizational sustainability objectives and product and service delivery through project management.

We often think about project management as a specialized function that is designed to achieve business goals, strategies, and objectives within constraints. It should be known however, that sustainability and projects are not a new concept. 

In 1697, well before the industrial revolution, English author Daniel Defoe wrote about projects as a way of solving societal challenges, such as medical care, improving educational opportunities for women, or general welfare.  (A special thank you to Dr. Reinhard Wagner for turning me on to this...)

In figure 2 (right), the triple constraint has been augmented to include increased business considerations as well as the impacts of Time, Cost, Scope to society, the environment, and prosperity to our products and services and the approach taken to deliver them.  This shift in focus alone can create a ripple effect in how we view the alignment with projects and sustainability.

PMI Research indicates that The global economy needs 25 million new project professionals by 2030. 

In order to deliver on global challenges such as climate change, bi-diversity loss, overconsumption, gender inequality, and aging/ineffective infrastructure, while achieving business success in the 4h industrial revolution, we must provide these new project managers with the tools to achieve business results—while at the same time—regenerating bio-diversity by leveraging Nature Based Solutions (NBS) to promote nature as a means for providing solutions for societal challenges. What are your thoughts?
Leadership P5 Project Management Sustainability GPM P5 Standard Project Economy

Perspectives · Perspectives

Does Your Business Case Pass the Toddler Test?

David Smyth March 3, 2022
Does Your Business Case Pass The Toddler Test? I have written, reviewed, and signed off on Business Cases for over 15 years.  I have been a parent for three and a half years.  It took me two years of being a parent to realize the not always obvious overlap between these two important roles (one far more important than the other) and that being a parent has greatly helped me improve my writing and analysis of Business Cases. The Business Case is the lifeblood of every project and within the PRiSM project lifecycle is a living, breathing document to be reviewed, reiterated, refined, and reconfirmed during every project phase.  But what makes a well-written Business Case essential to a successful project is that it clearly outlines the justification for the project.  The Why. Why this project over others?  Why does this help sustain our business? Why take this risk now? Why does this create benefits and value to our customers? In hindsight, I was rarely thorough, or frankly, patient enough with the whys of the Business Case.  What changed that for me?  Having a toddler.  Around the time my son turned two he started asking “why”? roughly 612 times a day (give or take). If you have ever had a two-year-old, you realize the “why” rabbit hole is much deeper than anything Morpheus explained to Neo in The Matrix.  By a long shot. “Why should I eat this?”  “To grow big and strong?”  “Why should I grow big and strong?”  “So you can stop asking me why 612 times a day (give or take)”.  The why chain of questioning usually ends one of two ways, me finally asking him if he wants ice cream (not a tactic I recommend) or him finally getting bored and asking to watch Fireman Sam. I quickly understood that toddlers ask why for many important reasons.  Out of sheer curiosity, to gain a better understanding of things that can seem very scary or confusing to them, to bond with people through communication, and to increase their confidence in activities and decision making (additional benefit: avoiding toddler tantrums later).  Which are the exact same reasons Senior Executives ask why!  Projects that cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars and change their Business As Usual are risky, scary and often confusing. The costs, risks, assumptions, success criteria, alternatives and sustainable and traditional benefits need to be fully outlined, communicated, understood, and agreed upon from the very outset (additional benefit: avoid Senior Executive tantrums later). I have often reviewed Business Cases with the same blank look on my face as I get when watching Christopher Nolan movies, or my son does watching The Wiggles, because they are not fully fleshed out. I lived in Ottawa for 15 years.  It is one of the coldest Capital cities in the world.  Did the Business Case for the city’s Light Rail Transit not include how to keep the trains functioning in cold weather in its risk and assumptions? That’s as confusing as whether Leo DiCaprio was in reality or dreaming at the end of Inception.  I live in Toronto where we are spending $3.5 billion (and counting) on a three subway stop extension.  That’s as confusing as the last two and a half hours of Tenet (which is two and a half hours).  In hindsight a solution to these issues could have been to simply have toddlers in the room asking why? Incorporating tools such as the P5 Impact Analysis and Sustainability Management Plan, and more importantly, developing the patience, understanding and empathy needed as a parent,  have enabled me to gain a stronger aptitude for explaining or asking about all aspects of the potential project such as why a proposed project considered nature base alternatives; why social or environmental benefits were given their assigned weight; why are sustainability benefits prioritized as they are; why are we choosing that supplier; etc. All of these questions, and a great many more, are required to make a properly informed decision. So the next time you write a Business Case, ask yourself if it can withstand the pressure of a room full of toddlers.  If you’re not certain, it’s time to work on the next version and ask more whys.

Perspectives · P5

The Risk of Inaction (ROI)

Dr. Joel Carboni February 5, 2022
Investopedia explains Return on investment (ROI) as a performance measure used to evaluate the efficiency or profitability of an investment or compare the efficiency of a number of different investments. ROI tries to directly measure the amount of return on a particular investment, relative to the investment’s cost.  This post is not about that.  I am here to talk about the Risk of Inaction, a different kind of ROI. One of the first exercises done during the pre-project phase of a project is to determine to proceed, analyze alternatives or assess what happens if we do nothing. I found this to be just a 'tick the box' exercise early in my career. I started managing projects in the late '90s. In all my years in the field, it was more common than not that by the time a project reached my inbox, the decision to proceed was a foregone conclusion.   As I sit here typing this, I can recall several times when a project core team was first assembled to plan, and the discussion would begin. It would often go something like this: Me: "Are we all clear on the business case?" Team: "Uh-huh" Me: "What are the alternatives?" Team:  Me: "What if we do nothing?" Team:  Me: "Ok then, we proceed." Today though, the notion of "doing nothing" has a much different meaning, depending on how you look at it. When an opportunity to develop a project is presented, high-level planning is conducted to get the ball rolling. There are a thousand ways from an approach standpoint to begin. In PRiSM, the first significant step is for the Project Manager and Project Sponsor to be selected. Then the process continues as shown below.     One of the activities that we encourage is a P5 Impact Assessment. Note that this is a free tool that we offer.  The P5 analysis is conducted at a high level when alternatives are being analyzed to assess the impact on the environment, society, and the economy (macro and micro) based on the high level business case. Once this is conducted, it helps frame the "do we proceed" discussion as there is more information available to make an informed decision.  When deciding to proceed, the decision must consider the risks, opportunities, and benefits. No one would argue that (except maybe a few people on LinkedIn who love to quarrel about everything.) Looking back at my career, not once did I hear the words, "If we proceed, we must ensure that we take all measures to safeguard biodiversity ensure we are mitigating or at the least offsetting CO2 emissions while ensuring that we are being socially and economically responsible." Why? I could say we didn't know any better, but we did. We were either not paying attention, didn't care, or felt that it was someone else's problem. Maybe it is a combination of all three.  Normally, the emphasis was placed on a needs analysis, available budget, time and resources and social/environmental considerations were only given to the extent of not breaking any laws or staying within bounds...  We recently published research that among 30,000+ respondents from 94 countries that 38% of projects are being adversely impacted by extreme weather events related to human-induced climate change. This was up from only 4% a few years prior. 

This number should frighten you. Without a stronger commitment to start practicing project management in a manner that ensures biodiversity gains to combat climate chaos directly, our Risk of Inaction will exacerbate the problem and life as we know it will look nothing like it does today for our children.

According to the WEF, Respondents to the Global Risks Perception Survey (GRPS) 2021–2022 rank “climate action failure” as the most critical threat to the world in both the medium term (2–5 years) and long term (5–10 years), with the highest potential to severely damage societies, economies and the planet. Most also believe too little is being done: 77% said international efforts to mitigate climate change have “not started” or are in “early development”. Unfortunately, we can no longer bury our heads in the sand. The Risk of Inaction or "ROI" is too significant. For more, download the P5 Standard for Sustainability in Project Management or take a short course on the subject at courses.greenprojectmanagement.org
P5 Risk of Inaction P5 Standard PRiSM Methodology

Perspectives · Perspectives

The importance of being multi-disciplinary with Sustainable Project Management

Peter Milsom May 1, 2021
There is an ongoing debate about whether it is better to be a specialist or a generalist in the marketplace. Some recruiters have provided a recommendation of playing it safe by positioning yourself as a "specialist, with breadth." In a Forbes article they recommended being a specialist in your topic and desire, and being a generalist in your skills and approach. When I teach project managers, assessors, consultants and masters students in sustainable project management and management consultancy, I always try to emphasize the importance of being "multi-disciplinary", and developing their brand recognition for being a subject matter expert in a unique niche that has commercial value. The importance of this, particularly in sustainable project management, is that being knowledgeable and competent in several different disciplines that go well together has become a cost of entry now. Combining ones skills in a unique way that is individual to you becomes far more useful than the sum of each skill separately. I read a post in Forge by Medium called "How to Become the Best in the World at Something," written by Tomas Pueyo that provides a wonderful narrative around this, and which I borrowed significantly as the framework for this post.

How Much Work It Takes to Become the Best at One Skill

How many people will become President or Prime Minister of a country, the leading doctor or lawyer or accountant or engineer, or recognized for a season or career as the best hockey or football or soccer player, the best pianist or singer (country, blues, rock, new rock, old rock, indie etc.). Even for a short period of time becoming recognized as the world's best at any unique skill or profession is the definition of unique. Looking at these graphic examples, most people (in the lower blue zone) have very little of a specific skill. A bit of work can quickly get you to the top 10% (the green zone). But as you join the elite, it becomes harder and harder to move up, because you are facing competitors who are deeply committed to that skill, have unprecedented drive, have invested extraordinary time and resources to improve their competency and capacity, and / or have unusual advantages such as genetic gift(s) or luck that others do not have. So to become the world's best swimmer, best singer, best runner, best pianist or best at whatever skill in the world is next to impossible. The secret is in something defined by cartoonist Adam Scott, of Dilbert fame, known as skill stacking.

Combining Two or more Skills

The recommendation is to develop a variety of skills to an achievable level which combine to make someone a sought-after commodity. This is how he described his success and fame:
"Scott Adams explained that he is not a great artist, but rather, just average compared to other artists. He is a good writer, but not a great writer and has never taken a college level writing course. He can be somewhat funny, but a lot of people are much more funny. He is just alright at business, and definitely not an expert by any means. Thoughtfully combining this list of mediocre skills has allowed him to become a very successful cartoonist and writer writer with an estimated net worth of $75 million." (Link, 2019)
Ideally, the skills would be unique, and also complementary. In the following example, each peak represents a unique skill. Getting to the top 10% (the green zone) of two skills requires much less work than becoming the best at a single one. As mentioned, it is important that these two curves don’t overlap much, meaning most people who are good at one skill are not good at the other.   In the example below, the two skills presented go hand in hand. In the example below, for the two skills presented most people who master one also master the other one. It’s therefore harder to stand out than if you had two skills that are unrelated.
"For example, if you’re in the top 1% in journalism, also being in the top 1% in writing skills isn’t going to be a big differentiator. Most top journalists are good writers. What’s different about stacking is having skills that not only work together but also are varied enough to make you stand out." (Pueyo, 2019)
 

An Example for Organizing your Skills

I recognize that I am probably an unusual case, but for over 20 years my OCD has been focused on learning and professional certifications in those areas that made the most sense for the engagements I was on and where my career was going. For example, when I was working on the largest ITIL V2 rollout in the 2000's I got my ITIL V2 Manager and then the ITIL V3 Expert. As we were focusing on ITIL roll-outs I took what was the recognized (obviously biased) best project management methodology for this which was PRINCE2 (I had studied and used PRINCE at IBM in the late 90's and loved it). Which then set me off on all of the APMG - UK Office of Government Commerce (OGC) methods. This trend continued for about a decade as I enjoyed the different structural differences and perspectives in the standards/methods/frameworks of the competing associations and organizations, and then the integration points between the disciplines also began to interest. This led me to the realization that sustainability is a brilliant catalyst for all of these disciplines and skills. I was able to organize these skills into several tracks, which I could use for my personal skill stack. I chose my certifications and training as they provided evidence of knowledge, interest and in some cases competency which I could leverage along with the years of hands on experience and leadership in these disciplines.  

Keys to a Good Skill Stack

As a general rule of thumb, there are some key qualities which professionals from all sectors would certainly benefit from developing and refining. These include:
  • Strong written and verbal communication skills
  • Solid emotional intelligence
  • Sales experience
  • Public speaking skills
  • Programming skills
  • Strong persuasive abilities
  • Social media skills
If in doubt public speaking is always a good start, such as through Toastmasters or Dale Carnegie. For sustainable project management, our skill stack is a little different. The good news is that we can continue to improve and develop our skill sets during the course of our daily activities. Take the IPMA ICB4 competency model as an example where we may want to consider focusing on specific skills:   For the GPM360° Registered Assessor and Consulting (RCA) program we focus on raising awareness and competency around sustainable project management with the following skills (as well as the assessor and consulting skills):    

Combining Multiple Skills

The following combination of skills is uncommon and provides commercial value:
  • Advanced experience, training, certifications, competency and leadership in Project, Programme and Portfolio Management (P3M) is unusual. Few have extensive skills in all three.
  • Advanced sustainability experience, training and involvement is also not common combined with P3M.
  • P3M with sustainability and extensive training, certifications, experience and leadership in risk management is unique.
  • P3M, sustainability, risk and advanced business architecture training and certifications and experience is very unique.
  • Add on advanced management consulting training, competency and recognition at the highest levels and this provides an exceptionally unique skill stack.
  If we collapse the vertical axis and look at our skill stack from above, even if we are not in the yellow and red areas in any of these skills, not many people overlap in all of them. As well, we can continue to add more depending on the requirements of the situation. I for example could also focus on value and benefits management as well as business case specializations.   What we are doing here is taking a systems approach to building a platform that we can develop our unique brand and value propositions. We absolutely do not need to be the best in one area or skill set. For most this is a fools errand. A more sensible and reachable goal is to realize what niche you want to be recognized in where you stand out? What combination of skills and at what level do I need and that I can obtain to be unique in that niche? What you will hopefully discover that there are a number that you are already interested in, if not passionate about. For sustainable project management, we do need to realize the need to be multi-disciplinary. One can remove the consulting and assessing elements below, but the rest are the basic cost of entry for sustainable project management. The question is what do you add on top of these to your skill stack?

REFERENCES

Adams, Scott. “How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big: Kind of the Story of My Life.” Amazon, Portfolio, 30 Dec. 2014, https://www.amazon.com/How-Fail-Almost-Everything-Still-ebook/dp/B00FHI0XK2. ⊕ Adams, Scott (Dec. 27, 2016). The Kristina Talent Stack. https://www.scottadamssays.com/2016/12/27/the-kristina-talent-stack/ ⊕ Altucher, James. “Scott Adams: The Hardest Sell: The James Altucher Show, Ep. 276.” James Altucher, Nov. 2017, https://jamesaltucher.com/podcast/scott-adams-the-hardest-sell/. ⊕ Link, Jason. “Skill Stacking: Be Awesome with Average Skills.” Medium, The Shortcut Talks, 25 Nov. 2019, https://medium.com/the-shortcut/skill-stacking-be-awesome-with-average-skills-a52de26026e4. ⊕ Ockers, Michelle. “Skill Stacking with Scott Adams.” Michelle Ockers, 2 Dec. 2019, https://michelleockers.com/2019/12/02/skill-stacking-with-scott-adams/. ⊕ Pueyo, Tomas (2019). “How to Become the Best in the World at Something.” Medium, Forge, 21 Oct. 2019, https://forge.medium.com/how-to-become-the-best-in-the-world-at-something-f1b658f93428. ⊕ Wight, Simone (2018). “Talent Stacking – the Key to Standing out from the Crowd.” Davidson Corporate, Jan. 2018, https://www.davidsonwp.com/blog/2018/01/talent-stacking-the-key-to-standing-out-from-the-crowd. ⊕ Hollins, P. (2019). The Science of Rapid Skill Acquisition: Advanced Methods to Learn, Remember, and Master New Skills and Information, Second Edition. PublishDriv. https://books.google.ca/books?id=ys6oDwAAQBAJ ⊕ Wharton (Jul. 09, 2019). Don’t Underestimate Generalists: They Bring Value to Your Team. Knowledge at Wharton. https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/generalists-vs-specialists/ ⊕ Ceniza-Levine, Caroline (Jan. 30, 2018). To Advance In Your Career, Is It Better To Be A Specialist Or Generalist? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinecenizalevine/2018/01/30/to-advance-in-your-career-is-it-better-to-be-a-specialist-or-generalist/?sh=6d29acc5493e ⊕ Teodoridis, Florenta and Bikard, Michael and Vakili, Keyvan (Jul. 31, 2018). When Generalists Are Better Than Specialists, and Vice Versa. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/07/when-generalists-are-better-than-specialists-and-vice-versa ⊕ Epstein, David (May 28, 2019). Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World. Riverhead Books. https://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484/ ⊕ Murray, Caitlin (Sep. 24, 2019). Megan Rapinoe: the world's best player in every sense of the word. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/sep/24/megan-rapinoe-the-worlds-best-player-in-every-sense-of-the-word

Perspectives · Perspectives

Lessons from Harvard 4: How Adaptive Project Teams can work with Command & Control

Peter Milsom April 11, 2021
This is the final of four posts based on my experience at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health's Executive Education for Sustainability Leadership program that I took in November 2017, led by Dr. Leith Sharp, integrated with some of our GPM Global content where appropriate. The intent of these posts is to show some interesting research and recommendations by Harvard around sustainability that can be applied to project management. The intent of the program is to educate leaders to "learn powerful new strategies for enacting high-impact sustainability leadership that positions sustainability as a driver of organizational engagement, authenticity, agility, innovation, and change-capability." I recommend others to consider this excellent program. This is a complementary offering to GPM's sustainable project management training and practices. The first post dealt with understanding the organizational ecosystems and the impacts of change on people and cultures. The second post provided background on how to identify two organizational "operating systems" that do not traditionally work well together. The third and previous post provides background on the strategy and research on new idea life cycles and the resulting model to analyze these project initiatives. This final post will deal with the strategy, tools and techniques, or method, of how to empower the two "operating systems" identified in the second post to successfully implement important organizational change and deliver the expected project outcomes and benefits. The program provided valuable lessons, tools and techniques including an exceptional model for dealing with the different political landscapes and "operating systems" within organizations and providing strategies for how to use this insight to better implement change. Particularly multi-stakeholder and transformational change.  

Recognition

This post's graphics and content were adapted from the Harvard University Executive Education for Sustainability Leadership November 2017 program presentations by Dr. Leith Sharp.  

Context

We have discussed that there are significant challenges for new ideas and new changes within organizational cultures and social structures. We have identified some key groups to work with, and we have developed some models to analyze new idea life cycles to come up with approaches to improve change initiatives. The key is to provide recommendations in a way that makes sense for stakeholders. The question we left the last post of with was, how do we present a strategy or model to help the two operating systems work together that has been demonstrated by research to facilitate success of new ideas?   The last post highlighted a Forward Idea Flow Mapping Template to record and analyze new idea life cycles.   Out of the research by Dr. Sharp's team, one of the recommendations is the following method for approaching organizational change. This model encourages focusing on a timely Iteration between the two operating systems (arrhythmic).   So... lets start at the beginning. We will go through each milestone now in detail. For each organization, the Command and Control Operating System (CCOS) will already have a strategy and usually each initiative is strategically aligned. The Adaptive Operating System (AOS) is adaptive in its purpose and focus to get the job done.   So, when a NEW IDEA surfaces, each will engage based on its values and strengths as outlined in the second of these four posts.   Each of the identified milestones has a pivot point... they can go on or fail there.  

The Strategy

An unfortunate approach in many projects at the initial stages is to use the project mandate as a "bat" to force engagement and participation. However, the mandate is a finite type of capital. It also has the annoying characteristic of causing more social friction and disengagement within the organization(s) when forced, so forcing the mandate actually causes more harm than good.   This use of mandate first as a driver almost always leads to the following sequence:   The Mandate & Fix It demand leads to the We Will Fix It, which then leads to the How do you Want Us to Fix It which then once again leads to the Mandate & Fix It demand which starts the cycle all over again. The lessons learned from Harvard recommend relying less on the miss-perceived value of the finite mandate capital to force change. Rather, it has proven that it is better for the project teams to engage differently with the Adaptive Operative System (AOS) and Command Control Operating System (CCOS) to empower synergy.   Each Operating System is engaged to do what it does best, at the right time in the idea life cycle. Here we see the CCOS identifying that the NEW IDEA aligns with the strategy and is the right. It authorizes the Mandate, and gives permission to move forward. The AOS champions use the permission to engage with the organization to start to move forward asking questions such as what do you think and what, if any, are your concerns.   The AOS team starts to come up with possible ideas and requirements and options, for the NEW IDEA. These will have to be introduced to the CCOS Sponsors for consideration, advice and validation.   From the ideas some early adopters will come forward with some designs. These designs will need to be discussed and validated with the CCOS Sponsors to confirm that the organization is moving forward in the right way based on organizational priorities and resource, time, cost and risk constraints. CCOS will be working on it's sensing, or engaging the stakeholder ecosystem enough during the next milestones.   All of this leads to the next milestones:   Based on the early designs and the feedback from CCOS, the AOS will start piloting some of the designs.   This provides a critical de-risking service for the organization. The key question for AOS to ask the CCOS is what risks to you see... what are the threats so that they can be mitigated and accepted by the CCOS? The CCOS needs this iteration to de-risk the design to become a viable solution. The de-risking process has to prove the idea itself is viable and prove that the CCOS can integrate the new idea into business as usual or the current ecosystem. Iterating between the CCOS and AOS surfaces all CCOS risks and generates the right evidence in the right format for the CCOS decision-makers.   At this point with the pilots and de-risking exercise to mitigate the threats and create more successful solutions, the AOS continues to engage in its peer to peer network to identify any more risks and engage people about the problem, opportunity and possible solution to get their feedback and involvement to make it more sustainable and scalable. If you consider the Prosci ADKAR model, this would be the ADK steps of the people and organization readiness for change. Awareness of the need for change, Desire to support the change, and starting to develop the Knowledge of how to change. At the same time, as the solution becomes more acceptable to the CCOS, they begin to activate the decision making process so they know what is required from a governance perspective to obtain approval to move forward. Constantly iterate in and out of the Chain of Command Operating System to surface all risks, and identify and get all decision-makers on board by addressing all of their needs, and identifying the decision making process.   Once there is a solution that satisfies the organizational needs, is cost-effective, sustainable, scalable and risk acceptable it is ready for formal approval, scaling and rolling out. The AOS with their shared ownership will help with the acceptance, adoption and integration of the solution into the organization. Using these techniques, the focus should be to reduce risk and build capital across the organizational ecosystem (and sometimes beyond) by iterating between the AOS & CCOS.  

Requirements

 

Starter Kit

 

Organizational Design Principles for Idea Flow

  1. Design for enough sensing – engaging the stakeholder ecosystem enough
  2. Emphasize psychological safety and practices that enhance group intelligence
  3. Find your AOS champions & your CCOS sponsors as soon as you can
  4. Get the CCOS to signal permission/invitation for involvement in the idea life cycle
  5. Design for enough iterating between CCOS and AOS
  6. Iterate (where possible pilot) to resolve risks & generate evidence for the CCOS
  7. Create peer to peer influence to increase engagement through the AOS
  8. Match the moves to the operating system that is best suited
  9. Design ways for the AOS to reduce expenditure of mandate capital
(Dr. Leith Sharp, 2017-3)  

Communication and Understanding Between the Operating Systems

Throughout the process there will be a requirement for an ongoing and adequate translation between the two operation systems:  

A New AOS Mindset: Iterating to De-Risk

 

A New CCOS Mindset: Iterating to De-Risk

   

Benefits

The AOS de-risks new ideas to digestible levels for the CCOS to scale/structure:   The healthy idea flow addresses the two different domains or operating systems synergistically. It is part of the process of retraining the CCOS to iterate with the AOS towards thresholds.   Healthy idea life cycles reduce uncertainty, reduce risk & ensure stability  

Aligning the Method with the Sustainable Project Management Standard

GPM Global is the world leader in sustainable projects. GPM designed the first sustainable project management method PRojects Integrating Sustainable Methods (PRiSM). The PRiSM Project Life-Cycle and Phases are integrated into the New Idea Sustainable Project Life-Cycle Method. It is also recommended to use GPM's P5 risk mitigation tool to assess the sustainable threats and opportunities that may occur in the people, planet and prosperity sustainability domains while managing the projects processes and delivering the project's products.

Conclusion

This four-part blog post series has dealt with:
  1. Organizational Dynamics Set the Stage for Change
  2. Understanding Organizational “Operating Systems”
  3. Discovering the Squiggle on Projects
  4. A New Idea Sustainable Project Life-Cycle Method
There was a lot of content and ideas, with background references provided. A characteristic of all projects is that they are all different. This means that the way they are dealt with and managed requires the approach to be tailored to the industry, culture, ecosystems, priorities, constraints, stakeholder needs and other factors. This means each project will be managed differently. These four blog posts have provided a lot of tools, techniques and a method that can be part of your tool-kit that can be customized to your situation, experience and capabilities.  

References

  Anderson, Marc. (2009). The role of group personality composition in the emergence of task and relationship conflict within groups. Journal of Management & Organization. 15. 82-96. 10.5172/jmo.837.15.1.82. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269638378_The_role_of_group_personality_composition_in_the_emergence_of_task_and_relationship_conflict_within_groups Buchanan, D., & Badham, R. (1999). Politics and Organizational Change: The Lived Experience. Human Relations, 52(5), 609–629. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016930112943. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001872679905200503 Dizikes, Peter. “Putting Heads Together - New Study: Groups Demonstrate Distinctive ‘Collective Intelligence’ When Facing Difficult Tasks.” MIT News, 1 Oct. 2010, news.mit.edu/2010/collective-intel-1001. Eisenhardt, K. M., Kahwajy, J. L., & Bourgeois, L. J. (1997). How Management Teams Can Have a Good Fight How Management Teams Can Have a Good Fight. Harvard Business Review, 75, 77–86. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at https://hbr.org/1997/07/how-management-teams-can-have-a-good-fight Feldman, David Henry. Beyond Universals in Cognitive Development. Ablex, 1994. Haidt, Jonathan and Iyer, Ravi. (2016). "How to Get Beyond Our Tribal Politics." The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-get-beyond-our-tribal-politics-1478271810 Haidt, Jonathan. (2013). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777 Hibbing, John R.; Smith, Kevin B.; Alford, John R.. (2013). Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives, and the Biology of Political Differences. Taylor and Francis. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at https://www.amazon.com/Predisposed-Liberals-Conservatives-Political-Differences/dp/0415535875 Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2015. Kim, W. C. and Mauborgne, R. (2003). Fair Process: Managing in the Knowledge Economy. Harvard Business Review, 81(1). Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at https://hbr.org/2003/01/fair-process-managing-in-the-knowledge-economy Lencioni, Patrick M.. (2006). Silos, Politics and Turf Wars: A Leadership Fable About Destroying the Barriers That Turn Colleagues Into Competitors (J-B Lencioni Series). Wiley. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at https://www.amazon.com/Silos-Politics-Turf-Wars-Competitors/dp/0787976385 Martin, N. A. (2012). Project Politics: A Systematic Approach to Managing Complex Relationships. Ashgate Publishing Limited. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at https://www.amazon.ca/Project-Politics-Systematic-Approach-Relationships-ebook/dp/B0091QC2G4 McCalman, J., Paton, R., & Siebert, S. (2016). Organizational Politics and Change. In Change Management: A guide to effective implementation (pp. 256–281). Los Angeles: SAGE. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/change-management/book241248 Pentland, Alex. Social Physics: How Good Ideas Spread - the Lessons from a New Science. Scribe Publications, 2015. Pinto, Jeffrey K.. (1996). "Power & Politics in Project Management." Project Management Institute. ISBN-13: 978-1-880410-43-1. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at http://my.safaribooksonline.com/1880410435 Rock, David. “Managing with the Brain in Mind.” Strategy Business, 27 Aug. 2009, www.strategy-business.com/article/09306?gko=9efb2. Sharp, Leith. (N.D.). “Idea Flow Mapping.” Executive Education for Sustainability Leadership, eesl.sph.harvard.edu/idea-flow-mapping. Sharp, Leith & Hsueh, Joe. (2017-1). "Executive Education for Sustainability Leadership 2017 Program - Module 1: The Secret Life of Ideas." Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health - Department of Environmental Health Sharp, Leith. (2017-2). "Executive Education for Sustainability Leadership 2017 Program - Module 2: Idea Flow." Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health - Department of Environmental Health Sharp, Leith. (2017-3). "Executive Education for Sustainability Leadership 2017 Program - Module 3: From Friction to Flow." Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health - Department of Environmental Health Sharp, Leith. (2017-4). "Executive Education for Sustainability Leadership 2017 Program - Module 4: Ideas and Context." Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health - Department of Environmental Health Sharp, Leith. (2017-5). "Executive Education for Sustainability Leadership 2017 Program - Module 5: Working With Our Social Algorithm to Unless Flow." Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health - Department of Environmental Health Tjosvold, D. (2008), The conflict-positive organization: it depends upon us. J. Organiz. Behav., 29: 19–28. doi:10.1002/job.473. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.473/abstract

Perspectives · Perspectives

Lessons from Harvard 3: Discovering the Squiggle on Projects

Peter Milsom April 5, 2021
This is the third of four posts based on my experience at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health's Executive Education for Sustainability Leadership program that I took in November 2017, led by Dr. Leith Sharp, integrated with some of our GPM Global content where appropriate. The intent of these posts is to show some interesting research and recommendations by Harvard around sustainable project management. The intent of the program is to education leaders to "learn powerful new strategies for enacting high-impact sustainability leadership that positions sustainability as a driver of organizational engagement, authenticity, agility, innovation, and change-capability." I strongly recommend others to consider this excellent program. It is a complementary offering to GPM's sustainable project management training and practices. The first post dealt with understanding the organizational ecosystems and the impacts of change on people and cultures. The second post, the one before this, provided background on how to identify two organizational "operating systems" that do not traditionally work well together. This post provides background on the strategy and research on new idea life cycles and the resulting model to analyze these project initiatives. The final post, the next one, will deal with the strategy, tools and techniques of how to empower the two "operating systems" identified in the second post to successfully implement important organizational change and deliver the expected project outcomes and benefits. The program provided invaluable lessons, tools and techniques including an exceptional model for dealing with the different political landscapes and "operating systems" within organizations and providing strategies for how to use this insight to better implement change. Particularly multi-stakeholder and transformational change.  

Recognition

This post's graphics and content were adapted from the Harvard University Executive Education for Sustainability Leadership November 2017 program presentations by Dr. Leith Sharp.  

Context

Decisions for new ideas and projects often die from any number of events. The question from the last post was how can we work with these two operating system in a manner that is comfortable to both of them that will help facilitate organization change of new ideas? Or how do we work with organizations to mitigate some of these cultural and stakeholder related threats.   In the previous post we identified two key organizational operating systems that often do not work well together, but are both required to proactively enable the development of new ideas and deliver organizational objectives successfully. These two operating systems and their key descriptors are outlined below: The question is how to facilitate these two cultures / operating systems to better work together towards a common goal  

Forensic Idea Flow Mapping of New Ideas Life-Cycle

In 2014, Dr. Leith Sharp of Harvard started mapping the journey of new ideas through time using a new technique developed by her team called ‘Forensic Idea Flow Mapping.’ Dr. Sharp identified the timeline on the horizontal access and the progress on the vertical access. The idea is that each stage has a pivot point where the new idea can go upwards in a positive new direction or negatively fall backwards or fail and stop at that pivot point. Below is an example of what these forensic idea flow maps of new ideas life-cycle looked like.   Dr. Sharp mapped over 1,000 idea life cycles, and noticed a variety of powerful patterns and themes had emerged.     Dr. Sharp also researched and identified where the Command and Control Operating System (CCOS) was involved, where the Adaptive Operating System (AOS) was involved, and where both of the Operating Systems (@) were involved at these key pivot points. Many of these new ideas that Dr. Sharp mapped and analyzed had life cycles that looked like this which did not appear to make upwards progress and kept going up and down. There appeared to be friction from various sources impeding the progress of these new ideas.   Whereas ideas that were successful had life cycles with positive flows more like the following two images:     Dr. Sharp started to refer to these idea flow maps of new idea life-cycles as "Squiggles". Her research identified strategies for facilitating new ideas to move from friction to flow in organizations.  

The Squiggle

So... what do we mean by squiggle? The fun part of this exercise of analyzing the idea flow maps of new idea life-cycles was reviewing the documented original plan with the "official" story compared to the actual real-world experiences. In almost all situations the perspective was this (with the actual experience different each time).  
"Every new idea, project or enterprise has a life cycle from inception to completion that is as unique as a fingerprint. This is because every idea exists within a unique context, faces a unique constellation of risks and opportunities and requires the engagement of a unique constellation of stakeholders to engage" (Sharp, N.D.).
Each idea has its own unique stakeholder ecosystem, risks, opportunities, assets, context etc.. Dr. Sharp and her team developed a Forward Idea Flow Mapping Template to work on analyzing new ideas to identify best practices. This model allows for forward idea flow mapping in order to design moves, track moves & record the actual story. It is important to socialize a visual and verbal lexicon to enable design thinking for idea flow. The project team must start explaining the actual idea life cycles visually using a model like this.  

Conclusion

The challenge we now have is, how do we present a strategy or model to help the two operating systems work together that has been demonstrated by research to facilitate success of new ideas?   The following model will represent the framework for moving forward.   The next post will provide strategies, tools and techniques from the lessons learned from this research.  

References

  Anderson, Marc. (2009). The role of group personality composition in the emergence of task and relationship conflict within groups. Journal of Management & Organization. 15. 82-96. 10.5172/jmo.837.15.1.82. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269638378_The_role_of_group_personality_composition_in_the_emergence_of_task_and_relationship_conflict_within_groups Buchanan, D., & Badham, R. (1999). Politics and Organizational Change: The Lived Experience. Human Relations, 52(5), 609–629. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016930112943. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001872679905200503 Dizikes, Peter. “Putting Heads Together - New Study: Groups Demonstrate Distinctive ‘Collective Intelligence’ When Facing Difficult Tasks.” MIT News, 1 Oct. 2010, news.mit.edu/2010/collective-intel-1001. Eisenhardt, K. M., Kahwajy, J. L., & Bourgeois, L. J. (1997). How Management Teams Can Have a Good Fight How Management Teams Can Have a Good Fight. Harvard Business Review, 75, 77–86. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at https://hbr.org/1997/07/how-management-teams-can-have-a-good-fight Feldman, David Henry. Beyond Universals in Cognitive Development. Ablex, 1994. Haidt, Jonathan and Iyer, Ravi. (2016). "How to Get Beyond Our Tribal Politics." The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-get-beyond-our-tribal-politics-1478271810 Haidt, Jonathan. (2013). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777 Hibbing, John R.; Smith, Kevin B.; Alford, John R.. (2013). Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives, and the Biology of Political Differences. Taylor and Francis. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at https://www.amazon.com/Predisposed-Liberals-Conservatives-Political-Differences/dp/0415535875 Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2015. Kim, W. C. and Mauborgne, R. (2003). Fair Process: Managing in the Knowledge Economy. Harvard Business Review, 81(1). Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at https://hbr.org/2003/01/fair-process-managing-in-the-knowledge-economy Lencioni, Patrick M.. (2006). Silos, Politics and Turf Wars: A Leadership Fable About Destroying the Barriers That Turn Colleagues Into Competitors (J-B Lencioni Series). Wiley. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at https://www.amazon.com/Silos-Politics-Turf-Wars-Competitors/dp/0787976385 Martin, N. A. (2012). Project Politics: A Systematic Approach to Managing Complex Relationships. Ashgate Publishing Limited. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at https://www.amazon.ca/Project-Politics-Systematic-Approach-Relationships-ebook/dp/B0091QC2G4 McCalman, J., Paton, R., & Siebert, S. (2016). Organizational Politics and Change. In Change Management: A guide to effective implementation (pp. 256–281). Los Angeles: SAGE. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/change-management/book241248 Pentland, Alex. Social Physics: How Good Ideas Spread - the Lessons from a New Science. Scribe Publications, 2015. Pinto, Jeffrey K.. (1996). "Power & Politics in Project Management." Project Management Institute. ISBN-13: 978-1-880410-43-1. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at http://my.safaribooksonline.com/1880410435 Rock, David. “Managing with the Brain in Mind.” Strategy Business, 27 Aug. 2009, www.strategy-business.com/article/09306?gko=9efb2. Sharp, Leith. (N.D.). “Idea Flow Mapping.” Executive Education for Sustainability Leadership, eesl.sph.harvard.edu/idea-flow-mapping. Sharp, Leith & Hsueh, Joe. (2017-1). "Executive Education for Sustainability Leadership 2017 Program - Module 1: The Secret Life of Ideas." Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health - Department of Environmental Health Sharp, Leith. (2017-2). "Executive Education for Sustainability Leadership 2017 Program - Module 2: Idea Flow." Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health - Department of Environmental Health Sharp, Leith. (2017-3). "Executive Education for Sustainability Leadership 2017 Program - Module 3: From Friction to Flow." Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health - Department of Environmental Health Sharp, Leith. (2017-4). "Executive Education for Sustainability Leadership 2017 Program - Module 4: Ideas and Context." Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health - Department of Environmental Health Sharp, Leith. (2017-5). "Executive Education for Sustainability Leadership 2017 Program - Module 5: Working With Our Social Algorithm to Unless Flow." Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health - Department of Environmental Health Tjosvold, D. (2008), The conflict-positive organization: it depends upon us. J. Organiz. Behav., 29: 19–28. doi:10.1002/job.473. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.473/abstract

Perspectives · Perspectives

Lessons from Harvard 2: Understanding Organizational "Operating Systems"

Peter Milsom March 20, 2021
This is the second of four posts based on my experience at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health's Executive Education for Sustainability Leadership program that I took in November 2017, led by Dr. Leith Sharp, integrated with some of our GPM Global content where appropriate. The intent of these posts is to show some interesting research and recommendations by Harvard around sustainability leadership that will be useful for sustainable projects. The intent of the program is to educate leaders to "learn powerful new strategies for enacting high-impact sustainability leadership that positions sustainability as a driver of organizational engagement, authenticity, agility, innovation, and change-capability." I strongly recommend others to consider this excellent program. It is a complementary offering to GPM's sustainable project management training and practices. The first post provides some perspectives on the organizational ecosystems and the impacts of change on people and cultures. This post deals with two key "operating systems" that are often involved in many types of projects, and should be considered for all change initiatives. These two different "operating systems" are often required to work together in projects to deliver the organizational change and get to the right solution. The challenge is that they are often not able to work together. Importantly the Harvard approach to work with these challenges reinforces that these positions are neither good nor evil, simply different in how they deal with change initiatives... but that with the right approach they can work together successfully. The third post after this one provides the background on the strategy and research on new idea life cycles and the resulting model to analyze these project initiatives. The final post will deal with the strategy, tools and techniques of how to empower the two "operating systems" identified in this post to successfully implement important organizational change and deliver the expected project outcomes and benefits. The program provided invaluable lessons, tools and techniques including an exceptional model for dealing with the different political landscapes and "operating systems" within organizations and providing strategies for how to use this insight to better implement change. Particularly multi-stakeholder and transformational change.  

Recognition

This post's graphics and content were adapted from the Harvard University Executive Education for Sustainability Leadership November 2017 program presentations by Dr. Leith Sharp.  

Context

We finished the last post with the following questions...
  • Who in the zoo affects the successful implementation of new ideas?
  • How can we work with these groups and individuals to mitigate the risk and establish the social trust to obtain the authority and buy-in to design and deliver the change?
Though the following two Exhibits are tongue in cheek,they do highlight what for many organizations actually represents the real organization chart.   The question is how do we work with and navigate the organization to better facilitate change. Are there parts of the organization that we can work with? Going back to the old rule, if you cannot name it, you cannot control / influence it. Research from Harvard shows how two communities involved in many types of organizational change are the Command Control Operating System (CCOS) and the Adaptive Operating System (AOS). The challenge though is getting these "operating systems" to understand each other and work together effectively. In the real world though, the following is most often the case: So what is the difference between these two groups? There are different ways of exploring these two operating systems. These differences can be experienced organizationally, from the sponsor or from the project manager or different project teams or stakeholders. These differences can introduce potential cultural and value based areas of conflict with stakeholders and the project team. For example, do we want a more dynamic agile open ended and change positive project management approach, or a detailed firm time / cost / scope plan that does not change and follows the approved organizational project management method... or a combination of both? Neither is right nor wrong, though there may be preferences depending on the culture, industry, client run project or contractor run project, and type of project.  

Command Control Operating System (CCOS)

There are various ways to interpret the Command Control Operating System (CCOS). Here are some identifiers for the CCOS: It has been observed through GPM's experience and research that the Command Control Operating System (CCOS) also has a tendency to focus on the following cultural values (Hibbing et al, 2013, Page 110):
  • Desire for order and security, a commitment to tradition, and group loyalty
  • See out-groups as threats
  • Conformity - Traditional values, devotion to traditional behavioral standards
  • Tradition & Process Focused
 

Adaptive Operating System

There are also various ways to interpret the Adaptive Operating System (AOS). The following are some identifiers for the AOS:   The Adaptive Operating System is not simply the informal network of relationships in an organization. The AOS is a deliberately curated, purpose driven activation of human potential for productive ends. It has been observed through GPM's experience and research that the Adaptive Operating System (AOS) also has a tendency to focus on the following cultural values (Hibbing et al, 2013, Page 110):
  • Desire for the new and novel, a commitment to individual expression, and a tolerance of difference
  • See out-groups as potential sources of friendship and new knowledge
  • Openness to change - stimulation, self-direction, pleasure, novelty, excitement, and independent thought.
  • Entrepreneurial & Open to Change
 

Complementary Operating Systems - Both are Required

Change processes frequently require both operating systems to work together efficiently and effectively.   The challenge of course is how? When describing the traditional relationship between the Adaptive and Command Control Operating Systems... Most people say something like:   Understanding the differences is the first step, as we previously started to highlight. Each operating system has different operating rules, priorities, language etc.. Below are some more descriptors in a graphic that makes it easier to compare and contrast the two operating systems. Enormous synergy can be activated between these operating systems to enable idea flow and project success: These different perspectives are not new and the conflict between them is well documented. The question is how can we get these two to work together better. How can we get the integration, emergence and transformation required for these two operating systems to proactively empower idea flow and change delivery?   One key strategy requires that all groups are aligned around a shared purpose: Also, for sustainable or socially responsible projects, knowing that both of the following questions matter, with each able to help the other
  • What can the organization do for sustainability?
  • What can sustainability do for the organization?
   

Conclusion

Understanding these two operating systems, how they engage and perceive situations, what their focus and strengths are, will help set the stage for understanding how best to engage both.   As mentioned throughout this post though, the reality is that in most organizations these two operating systems / cultures do not work well together. This opens up the questions, how can we work with these two operating system in a manner that is comfortable to both of them that will help facilitate organization change of new ideas?   In order to do that, the next post provides the background on the research on an exciting model and technique to identify and analyze new idea life cycles that can be used to make recommendations on how best to optimize these operating systems working on these new project initiatives. The next post will introduce us to the squiggle.  

References

Anderson, Marc. (2009). The role of group personality composition in the emergence of task and relationship conflict within groups. Journal of Management & Organization. 15. 82-96. 10.5172/jmo.837.15.1.82. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269638378_The_role_of_group_personality_composition_in_the_emergence_of_task_and_relationship_conflict_within_groups Buchanan, D., & Badham, R. (1999). Politics and Organizational Change: The Lived Experience. Human Relations, 52(5), 609–629. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016930112943. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001872679905200503 Dizikes, Peter. “Putting Heads Together - New Study: Groups Demonstrate Distinctive ‘Collective Intelligence’ When Facing Difficult Tasks.” MIT News, 1 Oct. 2010, news.mit.edu/2010/collective-intel-1001. Eisenhardt, K. M., Kahwajy, J. L., & Bourgeois, L. J. (1997). How Management Teams Can Have a Good Fight How Management Teams Can Have a Good Fight. Harvard Business Review, 75, 77–86. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at https://hbr.org/1997/07/how-management-teams-can-have-a-good-fight Feldman, David Henry. Beyond Universals in Cognitive Development. Ablex, 1994. Haidt, Jonathan and Iyer, Ravi. (2016). "How to Get Beyond Our Tribal Politics." The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-get-beyond-our-tribal-politics-1478271810 Haidt, Jonathan. (2013). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777 Hibbing, John R.; Smith, Kevin B.; Alford, John R.. (2013). Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives, and the Biology of Political Differences. Taylor and Francis. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at https://www.amazon.com/Predisposed-Liberals-Conservatives-Political-Differences/dp/0415535875 Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2015. Kim, W. C. and Mauborgne, R. (2003). Fair Process: Managing in the Knowledge Economy. Harvard Business Review, 81(1). Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at https://hbr.org/2003/01/fair-process-managing-in-the-knowledge-economy Lencioni, Patrick M.. (2006). Silos, Politics and Turf Wars: A Leadership Fable About Destroying the Barriers That Turn Colleagues Into Competitors (J-B Lencioni Series). Wiley. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at https://www.amazon.com/Silos-Politics-Turf-Wars-Competitors/dp/0787976385 Martin, N. A. (2012). Project Politics: A Systematic Approach to Managing Complex Relationships. Ashgate Publishing Limited. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at https://www.amazon.ca/Project-Politics-Systematic-Approach-Relationships-ebook/dp/B0091QC2G4 McCalman, J., Paton, R., & Siebert, S. (2016). Organizational Politics and Change. In Change Management: A guide to effective implementation (pp. 256–281). Los Angeles: SAGE. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/change-management/book241248 Pentland, Alex. Social Physics: How Good Ideas Spread - the Lessons from a New Science. Scribe Publications, 2015. Pinto, Jeffrey K.. (1996). "Power & Politics in Project Management." Project Management Institute. ISBN-13: 978-1-880410-43-1. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at http://my.safaribooksonline.com/1880410435 Rock, David. “Managing with the Brain in Mind.” Strategy Business, 27 Aug. 2009, www.strategy-business.com/article/09306?gko=9efb2. Sharp, Leith. (N.D.). “Idea Flow Mapping.” Executive Education for Sustainability Leadership, eesl.sph.harvard.edu/idea-flow-mapping. Sharp, Leith & Hsueh, Joe. (2017-1). "Executive Education for Sustainability Leadership 2017 Program - Module 1: The Secret Life of Ideas." Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health - Department of Environmental Health Sharp, Leith. (2017-2). "Executive Education for Sustainability Leadership 2017 Program - Module 2: Idea Flow." Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health - Department of Environmental Health Sharp, Leith. (2017-3). "Executive Education for Sustainability Leadership 2017 Program - Module 3: From Friction to Flow." Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health - Department of Environmental Health Sharp, Leith. (2017-4). "Executive Education for Sustainability Leadership 2017 Program - Module 4: Ideas and Context." Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health - Department of Environmental Health Sharp, Leith. (2017-5). "Executive Education for Sustainability Leadership 2017 Program - Module 5: Working With Our Social Algorithm to Unless Flow." Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health - Department of Environmental Health Tjosvold, D. (2008), The conflict-positive organization: it depends upon us. J. Organiz. Behav., 29: 19–28. doi:10.1002/job.473. Retrieved on September 1, 2017 at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.473/abstract

GPM Logo Flat4

 

Making projects sustainable on a global scale since 2009.

© 2009–2026 GPM Global. All rights reserved.

GPM®, Green Project Management®, and Sustainable Project Management® are registered trademarks of GPM Ltd. PRiSM™, the PMI-GPM P5™ Standard for Sustainability in Project Management, the PMI-GPM Practice Guide for Sustainability in Project Management, CSPP™ (formerly GPM-b™), CSPMs™, CSPMx™, CSP™, CSF™, Certified Sustainable Project Manager (Expert)™, GPM360°™, GPM360°™, and PSM3™ are trademarks of GPM Global and the PMI-GPM Joint Venture as applicable. Use requires written consent.

Certification

Online Policies

Organizational Policies

li#itemid-101 > ul.dropdown-menu { display: none !important; }