A Maturity Model for Integrating Sustainability in Projects and Project Management

A.J.Gilbert Silvius1 Professor of Business, ICT and Innovation, University of Applied Sciences, Utrecht, the Netherlands Principal Consultant, Van Aetsveld Project and Change management, Amersfoort, the Netherlands Ron Schipper Senior Consultant, Van Aetsveld Project and Change management, Amersfoort, the Netherlands

Abstract Sustainability is recognized as one of the most important challenges of our time. Following the success of Al Gores inconvenient truth, awareness seems to be growing that a change of mindset is needed, both in behavior as in policies. How can we develop prosperity without compromising the future? The concept of sustainability has also been linked to project management. This years IPMA expert seminar meeting was devoted to it. But what does sustainability mean for projects and project management? This paper presents a maturity model that provides practical insights on this question. Based on the concepts of sustainability, the model assesses the level of consideration of sustainability in projects. The result of the assessment is presented in a graphical way, that allows organization to benchmark their maturity and to monitor their development. With this maturity model, organizations can translate the abstract and interpretive concepts of sustainable development into practical actions. Keywords Sustainability, Project, Project Management, Maturity

Introduction In the last 10 to 15 years, the concept of sustainability has grown in recognition and importance. The pressure on companies to broaden its reporting and accountability from economic performance for shareholders, to sustainability performance for all stakeholders has increased (Visser, 2002). The recent world crises may even imply, that a strategy focused solely on shareholder value, is not longer viable (Kennedy, 2000). Following the success of Al Gores inconvenient truth, awareness seems to be growing that a change of mindset is needed, both in consumer behavior as in corporate policies. How can we develop prosperity without compromising the life of future generations? Proactively or reactively, companies are looking for ways to integrate ideas of sustainability in their marketing, corporate communications, annual reports and in their actions (Holliday, 2001). Sustainability, in this context, being defined as Adopting business strategies and activities that meet the needs of the enterprise and its stakeholders today while protecting, sustaining and enhancing the human and natural resources that will be needed in the future. (Deloitte & Touche, 1992). The concept of sustainability has more recently also been linked to project management (Gareis et al., 2009; Silvius et al., 2009). Association for Project Management (past-) chairman Tom Taylor recognizes that the planet earth is in a perilous position with a range of fundamental sustainability threats and Project and Programme Managers are significantly placed to make contributions to Sustainable Management practices (Association for Project Management, 2006). And at the 22nd World Congress of the International Project Management Association (IPMA) in 2008, IPMA Vice-President Mary McKinlay stated in the opening keynote speech that the further development of the project management profession requires project managers to take responsibility for sustainability (McKinlay, 2008). Her plea summarized the development of project management as a profession as she foresees it. In this vision, project managers need to take a broad view of their role and to evolve from doing things right to doing the right things right. This implies taking responsibility for the results of the project, including the sustainability aspects of that result. Also in academic research, the relationship between project management and sustainability is explored (e.g. by Gareis et al., 2009; Labuschagne and Brent, 2006; Silvius et al., 2009) as one of the (future) developments in project management. But how does this attention for sustainability find its way to the shop floor? How do organizations integrate the concepts of sustainability in their projects and in project management processes? If organizations put their money Corresponding author: Utrecht University of Applied Sciences, Padualaan 101, 3584 CH Utrecht, the Netherlands, email: [email protected]
1

where their mouth is on sustainability, it is inevitable that sustainability criteria and indicators will find its way to project management methodologies and practices in the very near future (Silvius et al., 2009). This paper presents a maturity model for the incorporation of sustainability in projects and project management processes. Based on the concepts of sustainability, the model assesses the level of consideration of sustainability in terms of resources, business processes, business model and products/services. The result of the assessment is presented in a graphical way, that allows organization to benchmark their maturity and to monitor their development. The next paragraphs first provide a comprehensive overview of the concepts of sustainability and their application to project management. The following section will then present the maturity model and its application.

The concepts of sustainability The balance between economic growth and social wellbeing has been around as a political and managerial challenge for over 150 years (Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002). Also the concern for the wise use of natural resources and our planet emerged already many decades ago, with Carsons book Silent Spring (Carson, 1962) as a launching hallmark. Propelled by the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) and the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, the opinion that none of these three goals, economic growth, social wellbeing and a wise use of natural resources, can be reached, without considering and effecting the other two, got widely accepted (Keating, 1993). With this widespread acceptance, sustainable development became one of the most important challenges of our time. By stating that In its broadest sense, sustainable development strategy aims at promoting harmony among human beings and between humanity and nature, the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) implies that sustainability requires also a social and an environmental perspective, next to the economical perspective, on development and performance. In his book Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business, John Elkington identifies this as the triple bottom line or Triple-P (People, Planet, Profit) concept: Sustainability is about the balance or harmony between economic sustainability, social sustainability and environmental sustainability (Elkington, 1997).

Figure 1. The Triple-P concept of sustainability

Elaborating on this, Dyllick and Hockerts (2002), identify three key concepts of sustainability.. Sustainability is about integrating economical, environmental and social aspects. This element refers to the triple bottom line or three-P concept as stated by Elkington (1997) as the three pillars of sustainability: Social, Environmental and Economical (illustrated in Figure 1). The concept suggests that three dimensions are interrelated and therefore may influence each other in multiple ways. And although these interrelations are generally acknowledged, it should be noted that regional differences exist with regards to the relative emphasis placed on each pillar. In (Western) Europe, sustainability is mainly about environmental concerns, where in Africa the social concerns seem to be prevailing. In an increasingly globalized economy, however, these differences should diminish over time. Sustainability is about integrating short-term and long-term aspects. This element focuses the attention to the full lifespan of the matter at hand. An important notion in this aspect is that the economical perspective, because of discount rates, tends to value short term effects more than long term effects, whereas social impacts or environmental degradation may not occur before the longterm. Sustainability is about consuming the income and not the capital. This aspect is a common realm in business from the economic perspective. From a social or environmental perspective, however, the impact may not be visible in the short-term, causing degradation of resources in the long run. Sustainability implies that the natural capital remains intact. This means that the source and sink functions of the environment should not be degraded. Therefore, the extraction of renewable resources

should not exceed the rate at which they are renewed, and the absorptive capacity of the environment to assimilate waste, should not be exceeded. (Gilbert et al., 1996)

Sustainability in projects and project management The concerns about sustainability indicate that the current way of producing, organizing, consuming, living, etc. may have negative effects on the future. In short, our current way of doing things is not sustainable. Therefore, some things have to change. We consider projects as temporary organizations (Lundin and Sderholm, 1995; Turner and Mller, 2003) that deliver (any kind of) change to organizations, products, services, policies or assets. Therefore it can be concluded that a (more) sustainable society requires projects. In fact, this connection between sustainability and projects was already established by the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). However, Eid concludes two decades later that the standards for project management fail to seriously address the sustainability agenda (Eid, 2009). The relationship between sustainability and project management is still an emerging field of study (Gareis et al., 2009). Literature is scarce, but some first studies and ideas were published in recent years (Labuschagne and Brent, 2006; Association for Project Management, 2006; Taylor, 2008; Eid, 2009; Gareis et al., 2009; Silvius et al., 2009; Turner, 2010; Silvius et al., 2010). Based on these studies, the following insights on sustainability in projects and project management can be derived. Sustainability in projects and project management is about integrating economical, environmental and social aspects in the management and delivery of projects. This insight corresponds with the triple bottom line element of sustainability. Integrating sustainability in project management requires the inclusion of People and Planet performance indicators in the management systems, formats and governance of projects (Silvius et al., 2010). In the current project management methodologies, the management of projects is dominated by the triple-constraint variables time, cost and quality (Project Management Institute, 2008). And although the success of projects is most often defined in a more holistic perspective, this broader set of criteria doesnt reflect in the way projects are managed. The triple-constraint clearly puts emphasis on the profit P. The social and environmental aspects may be included as aspects of the quality of the result, but they are bound to get less attention. Sustainability in project management stretches the system boundaries of the project and of project management. Given the future-orientation of sustainability, a logical implication is to consider the full life-cycle of a project, from its conception to its disposal. This view is further developed by Labuschagne and Brent (2006). In their work they argue, that when considering sustainability in project management, the total life cycle of the project (e.g. initiation-development-execution-testing-launch) should be taken into account. But not just the life-cycle of the project is relevant. The project will produce a result, being a change in assets, systems, behavior, etc. This result, in her words: the asset, should also be considered over its full life cycle. And even another level further, also the life cycle of the product or service that the asset produces should be considered. Including sustainability considerations in projects suggests that these three life cycles, the project life cycle, the asset life cycle and the product life cycle, are taken into account. Because Labuschagne and Brent include the result of the project in their framework, it is sensitive to the context of the project. Their studies regarded the manufacturing sector in which projects generally realize assets that produce products. In other contexts, the result of a project may be not an asset, but an organizational change or a new policy. The general insight however is that sustainability in projects suggests that also the supply chain of the project is considered. In other words, we should also consider the life cycle of whatever result the project realizes and also the life cycle of the resources used in realizing the result. Integrating the concept of sustainability in project management therefore stretches the systems boundaries of project management (Silvius, 2010). As stated earlier, the integration of the concepts of sustainability in project management has only just begun (Gareis et al., 2009). The current state of research on sustainability in projects and project management is therefore mostly interpretive, giving meaning to how the concepts of sustainability could be interpreted in the context of projects, rather than prescriptive, prescribing how sustainability should be integrated into projects. The studies provide ingredients, but no clear recipe. At the 2010 IPMA Expert Seminar Survival and Sustainability as Challenges for Project (publication forthcoming), one of the goals was to translate the concepts of sustainability to practically applicable tools for project management professionals (Silvius, 2010). One of the tools developed in this workshop was a Sustainability Checklist for projects and project managers. Table 1 provides this Sustainability Checklist. This checklist was one of the foundations in the development of the maturity model.

- Direct financial benefits Return on - Net Present Value Economic Investment - Flexibility / Optionality in the project Sustainability Business Agility

- Increased business flexibility - Local procurement - Digital communication Transport - Traveling - Transport - Energy used Environmental Energy - Emission / CO2 from energy used Sustainability - Recycling Waste - Disposal - Reusability Materials and - Incorporated energy resources - Waste - Employment - Labor / M anagement relations - Health and Safety Labor Practices and Decent Work - Training and Education - Organizational learning - Diversity and Equal opportunity - Non-discrimination - Freedom of association Human Rights - Child labor Social - Forced and compulsory labor Sustainability - Community support - Public policy / Compliance - Customer health and safety Society and - Products and services labeling Customers - M arket communication and Advertising - Customer privacy - Investment and Procurement practices Ethical behavior - Bribery and corruption - Anti-competition behavior

Table 1. A checklist for integrating sustainability in projects and project management (Silvius, 2010).

Assessing sustainability: a maturity model Maturity models are a practical way to translate complex concepts into organizational capabilities and to raise awareness for potential development. They provide guidance for action plans and allow organizations to monitor their progress (Dinsmore, 1998). Most maturity models are derived from the Software Engineering Institutes Capability Maturity Model (Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute, 2002) and thereby based on the maturity of processes. For example, project management maturity is in this context a measure for the organizations ability to perform project management and related processes in a controlled and optimized way. For the goals our sustainability maturity model, however, we feel that the process maturity approach does not adequately address the specific aspects and considerations of sustainability. The approach should be more focused. For that reason we choose to express a projects sustainability maturity in terms of depth of vision. This approach is based on our observation and experience that sustainability can be considered on different levels. A first logical level is the level of resources. For example using resources that provide the same functionality, but are less harmful for the environment, like using hybrid cars instead of normal fueled cars. These actions can reduce the less sustainable effects of operating the organization, but do not take away the cause of non-sustainability. A second level of consideration is therefore the business process in which the resources are used. A more sustainable business process takes away the cause of non-sustainable effects instead of just limiting or compensating them. For example optimizing a service management process in such a way that less travel is required. A third level of consideration is looking at the way the products or services are delivered: the business model. For example changing from a strictly off-line business model to a combined on-line and off-line business model, may have favorable effects on sustainability because of the fact that on-line shoppers travel less than off-line shoppers. A fourth and final level of consideration takes into account not only the business process or model to deliver products and services, but also the products and services themselves. How can products and services be innovated to contribute to a more sustainable society. For example a product that learns children to respect nature. The different levels of consideration reflect the more modern views on sustainability in which the challenge is not to make bad products, services and processes less bad, but to make them good. The maturity assessment uses a questionnaire consisting of four sections and in total 31 questions. The first three sections cover descriptive questions regarding the respondent, the project that is assessed and the organizational context of the project. The fourth section consist of the actual assessment questions. The model assesses the level (resources, business process, business model, products/services) on which the different aspects of sustainability are

considered in the project. The sustainability aspects are derived from the sustainability checklist presented earlier and are grouped in economical aspects, environmental aspects and social aspects. Presenting the projects maturity separately on these three pillars of sustainability is a deliberate choice in order to address the regional differences mentioned earlier and the ambitions or values an organization may have. Figure 2 shows the conceptual model of the assessment.
Non existing Sustainability in projects is considered at the level of the Resources Business Business Products / Processes Model Services

Sustainability aspects

People criteria Planet criteria Profit criteria

Figure 2. Conceptual model of the assessment For each sustainability aspect an assessment of the current situation and the desired situation is asked. This provides guidance for improvement. Some example questions2:
In which way does the project try to minimize its waste?
A. B. C. D. E. Actual Desired situation situation [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] No specific policies on this point. Waste in the project is separated in recyclable and non-recyclable and collected by the local waste handling companies. The project has policies (e.g. double sided printing) to minimize waste and waste in the project is separated. The project is designed to minimize waste and necessary waste is as much as possible recycled in the project itself. The project and the result it delivers are designed to minimize waste and necessary waste is as much as possible recycled in the project or result itself.

To what extent does the project apply policies or standards for diversity and equal opportunity that reflects the society it operates in?
A. B. C. D. Actual Desired situation situation [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] The project does not have any specific policies on diversity and equal opportunity, but complies with the standards and regulations of the organization it operates in. The project explicitly seeks diversity and complies with applicable standards and regulations on equal opportunity in terms of gender, race, religion, etc. The project actively (re) designs its work processes in a way (e.g. by designing part-time jobs) that diversity and equal opportunity are promoted and stimulated. The project actively (re) designs its work processes in a way (e.g. by designing part-time jobs) that diversity and equal opportunity are promoted and stimulated, and requires its suppliers to practice diversity practices and provide equal opportunity in terms of gender, race, religion, etc. The projects result is designed to improve diversity and equal opportunity in the society it operates in and this reflects in the way the project is executed and in its suppliers and users.

E.

[]

[]

The assessment is reported in a graphical way (figure 3), showing both the actual levels and the desired levels of integration of the sustainability aspects. Based on the report, organizations can discuss their ambition levels (the desired situation) on the different perspectives, develop an action plan to bridge the gap between actual levels of maturity and desired levels and to monitor their progress.
Sustainability in projects is considered at the level of the Resources Business Business Products / Processes Model Services

Non existing

People Planet Profit

Figure 3. Reporting format showing actual levels (dark colors) and desired levels (light colors) of integration of sustainability aspects
2

The full questionnaire can be ordered from the authors.

Summarized, the qualities of the maturity model are: - It translates the abstract and interpretive concepts of sustainable development into practically applicable prescriptive actions. - It assesses concrete projects as unit of study, thereby specifying overall corporate strategies. - It allows organizations to set their own standards and ambitions in accordance with company values.. - It allows organizations to monitor and report their development. - It is not normative as to whose responsibility (project sponsor, project manager, etc.) the actions are, but allows discussion and agreement about this. Conclusion Projects can make a contribution to the sustainable development of organizations. It should therefore be expected that the concepts of sustainability are reflected in projects and project management. And although some aspects of sustainability are found in the various standards of project management, it has to be concluded that the integration of sustainability in projects and project management is not fully recognized yet. This paper presented a practical maturity model for the assessment of the integration of the concepts of sustainability in projects and project management. It provides a practical tool for the translation of abstract and interpretive concepts into prescriptive actions. With this maturity model, an organization can prepare itself on this new but complex development of the project management profession.

References Association for Project Management. (2006), APM supports sustainability outlooks, Available at http://www.apm.org.uk/page.asp?categoryID=4. Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute (2002), Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute: Capability maturity models, Available at http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/. Carson, R. (1962), Silent Spring, Houghton Mifflin, Boston. Deloitte & Touche (1992) ISSD. Business strategy for sustainable development: leadership and accountability for the 90s. IISD. Dinsmore, P.C. (1998), How grown-up is your organization? PM Network, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 24-26. Dyllick, T. and Hockerts, K. (2002), Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability, in Business Strategy and the Environment, 11, pp. 130-141. Elkington, J. (1997), Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business, Capstone Publishing, Oxford. Gareis, R., Heumann, M. and Martinuzzi, A. (2009), Relating sustainable development and project management, IRNOP IX, Berlin. Gilbert, R., Stevenson, D., Girardet, H. and Stern, R. (Eds.), (1996), Making Cities Work: The Role of Local Authorities in the Urban Environment, Earthscan Publications. Holliday C. (2001), Sustainable growth, the DuPont way, in Harvard Business Review, September, pp. 129134. Keating, M. (1993), The Earth Summits Agenda for Change, Centre for our Common Future, Geneva. Kennedy, A. (2000), The End Of Shareholder Value: Corporations At The Crossroads, Basic Books, New York. Labuschagne, C. and Brent, A.C. (2006). Social indicators for sustainable project and technology life cycle management in the process industry, in International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 11, no.1, pp.3-15. Lundin R.A. and Sderholm A. (1995). A theory of the temporary organization, in Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11, 437455. McKinlay, M. (2008), Where is project management running to?, Keynote speech, International Project Management Association, World Congress, Rome, Italy. Silvius, A.J.G., Brink, J. van der and Khler, A. (2009), Views on Sustainable Project Management, in Human Side of Projects in Modern Business, Kalle Khkhnen, Abdul Samad Kazi and Mirkka Rekola (Eds.), IPMA Scientific Research Paper Series, Helsinki, Finland. Silvius, A.J.G., (2010), Report Workshop 2, IPMA Expert Seminar Survival and Sustainability as Challenges for Projects, Zurich. (Publication forthcoming) Silvius, A.J.G., Brink, J. van der and Khler, A. (2010), The impact of sustainability on Project Management, Asia Pacific Research Conference on Project Management (APRPM), Melbourne. Taylor, T. (2008), A sustainability checklist for managers of projects, Available at http://www.pmforum.org/library/papers/2008/PDFs/Taylor-1-08.pdf. Turner, J.R. (2010), Responsibilities for Sustainable Development in Project and Program Management, IPMA Expert Seminar Survival and Sustainability as Challenges for Projects, Zurich. (Publication forthcoming) Turner, J.R. and Mller, R. (2003). On the nature of the project as a temporary organization, in International Journal of Project Management, vol. 21, no. 3, pp.18. Visser, W.T (2002), Sustainability reporting in South Africa, in Corporate Environmental Strategy, vol. 9, no. 1, pp.79-85. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.