Measuring social impacts against the criteria using questionnaires to identify impacts and/or an evaluation method. In certain projects, a social development plan must be carried out as part of the project. S = C = Importance (or relative importance) of the impact category based on the distance-to-target method, i.e.
SIIG = SII calculated for a main area of protection (Level 4 of framework see Figure 3-6) by summing all impact pathways of the life cycle inventory components for the areas of protection. S =C = Importance or relative importance of the impact category based on the distance-to-target method, i.e. the criteria at Levels 5 and 6 of the framework are used to help draw causal relationships.
Midpoint categories are sub-indicator categories used to establish a causal relationship between social interventions and Level 6 criteria. Proposed assessment methods for midpoint categories are presented and demonstrated in the following sections.
Information Availability
Characterization factor and/or score guidelines Investment in health facilities Monetary value Quantitative Characterization factor Occupational health and safety incidents Risk of occupational health and safety incidents with. Local taxes Monetary value Quantitative Characterization factor National taxes Monetary value Quantitative Characterization factor Access to. Local Population Predicted Change in Local Population Qualitative Scoring Guidelines and Characterization Factors National Taxes Monetary Value Quantitative Characterization Factor Local Taxes Monetary Value Quantitative Characterization Factor Investment in Education Monetary Value Quantitative Characterization Factor Access to.
Local taxes Monetary value Quantitative Characterization factor Investment in water services Monetary value Quantitative Characterization factor Water consumption Predicted water consumption Quantitative Characterization factor Local population Predicted change in local population Qualitative Scoring guidelines and characterization factors Availability of. Local Population Predicted Change in Local Population Qualitative Scoring Guidelines and Characterization Factors Local Taxes Monetary Value Quantitative Characterization Factor National Taxes Monetary Value Quantitative Characterization Factor Press. Local population Predicted change in local population Qualitative Scoring guidelines and characterization factors National taxes Monetary value Quantitative Characterization factor Local taxes Monetary value Quantitative Characterization factor Transportation of people Predicted number of additional people who.
Phase in which Information is
The Delphi technique [267] was used to determine the availability of the social information needed to use the evaluation method. The same group of project management experts who participated in the first Delphi technique (see section 5.3) participated in this study. The first round of questionnaires was completed during personal interviews with each respondent to ensure a clear understanding of the required information (as shown in Table 6-7).
The questionnaires contained a list of necessary social information and asked an open question "Before which decision point (gate) in the project life cycle is information available or predictable?" using the project life cycle shown in Figure 1-4. The results were analyzed and presented in the second questionnaire as an answer to the question. If respondents disagreed, they were asked to indicate when in the project's life cycle they thought the information would be available.
Intervention 14 Phase in which Information is
Case Studies to Test Information Availability and
SIIG = SII calculated for a key protection area (Level 4 of the framework see Figure 3-6) by summing all the impact pathways of the life cycle inventory components for the protection areas. The project will have an overall positive social impact, although the creation of jobs may not outweigh the negative impact on the level of comfort in the neighborhoods near the plant. The overall positive impact is mainly due to the large contribution the project will make to the Gross Geographical Product (GGP) of a relatively small area that relies heavily on mining.
17 The equivalence units have been changed in contribution to GDP due to the available information. The chemical production facility in Mpumalanga province, discussed as a case study in chapter 4 (see section 4.2.1.2), is used to demonstrate the SII for the operational phase. The facility was chosen because of the availability of a strategic environmental assessment for the area and the company's sustainable development report [285, 263].
It is shown that the operation of the plant has an overall negative social impact. 22 The units of equivalence have been changed to annual accidents due to the available information. 24 The units of equivalence have been changed to contribution to GDP as a result of the available information.
In the same way, a fixed annual turnover and number of employees is assumed, based on the figures given in the sustainable development report. The decommissioning project has an overall positive social impact as the positive impact on resources and comfort level outweighs the negative impact on the economy due to the termination of employment. 26 Based on available information, the equivalence units have been changed to household waste generated in tonnes.
28 The equivalence units have been changed in contribution to GDP due to the available information.
Conclusion The case studies indicated that
It can be concluded that the evaluation method should not be directly applied or used in project management due to resistance to the method and a lack of social project and footprint information. It is an international problem that currently available statistics cannot provide an integrated picture of different dimensions of sustainable development [293], including the social dimension. The lack of social information parallels the environmental information situation in the mid-1980s, when researchers identified a lack of quality information as a problem and several calls for environmental databases emerged [294, 295].
Since the state of development for indicators or metrics for social business sustainability parallels that of environmental performance approximately 20 years ago [158], and the attention received by business has been marginal until the late 1990s, it is not to was surprised that the proposed evaluation method. can be overwhelming for project managers. It is therefore proposed that social sustainability should be incorporated into project management methodologies in stages, starting with questionnaires and checklists following more traditional risk approaches. In the future, the proposed estimation method may be applied when more information is available.
Checklists and Questionnaires Reservations was expressed towards a checklist
List of possible resistance to project impact descriptions and a list of areas with incomplete data or knowledge of impacts. Complete questionnaire to identify gaps in business that need to be addressed or problems that threaten feasibility.
Conclusion
Project Evaluation Methods
- Gate Readiness Reviews
- Gate Questions
- Project Definition Rating Index
These gate reviews are usually preceded by a pre-assessment by the project team to determine whether the project has completed the expected deliverables for the specific phase and is ready to enter the gate. Life-cycle industrial project assessment practices currently focus only on assessing the financial and technical feasibility of the project [106, 297]. The purpose of the gate readiness review is to determine whether the project can progress to the next phase.
Gate readiness reviews are guided by questions about transitions in project management methodology that provide insight. Many companies have adapted the PDRI and use it as a guideline during a gate readiness review. Gate questions give decision makers guidance on what deliverables the project should complete at the end of a particular phase.
Deliverables can be information required by decision makers to decide whether to proceed with the project. These questions evaluate the activities and results that are listed in the project management methodology. The activities and proposed outputs of Figure 6-4 and Figure 6-5 were used as a basis to develop a set of proposed gateway questions to be added to current project management methodologies to address social business sustainability.
If not, it is likely that this can be completed within the project time frame. However, some of the other elements relate to the proposed framework for social sustainability, for example I2, O6, N3 and L3. It is therefore suggested that PDRI should be used to address social enterprise sustainability in project management methodology.
Incorporating social business sustainability through questionnaires and/or checklists is a prerequisite for exploring PDRI options.
Basis of Project Decision Section 2: Front End Definition Section 3: Execution Approach Category A: Manufacturing Objectives Category F: Site Information Category L: Procurement Strategy
Decision-Making Techniques for Business Sustainability
- Multi Criteria Decision Analysis
- Balanced Scorecard (BSC) .1 History of the BSC
Another complexity is that sustainable development emphasizes evaluation over valuation, which is why traditional decision-making techniques based on reducing all information to economic terms cannot be applied, as all social and environmental impacts cannot be reduced to economic measurements [150]. Thus, the best decision-making techniques for sustainable project life cycle management are evaluation methods rather than valuation methods. The uniqueness of the technique lies in the objective hierarchy used for decision purposes and the way it converts pairwise comparisons into weights or scores by using matrix algebra and solving eigenvector problems.
Weight, or relative importance, is subsequently assigned to each level of the hierarchy by comparing only two measures at a time, using the nine-point scale developed specifically for the process (see Table 6-18). Direct weighting has been proposed as an alternative to the pairwise comparison method of the original AHP method. Weights for the environmental sub-criteria are obtained from a previous study conducted in South Africa [271].
Weights for the three main criteria for sustainable development and the social sub-criteria are obtained from the analysis of a questionnaire. The direct weighting approach was used for social sub-criteria and the pairwise comparison method for the main criteria. The values for the SIIs in Table 6-16 are used as scores for the social sub-criteria.
These RII values were used together with the available information (see Appendix P) to calculate the RII for the four environmental categories. Scores for the economic criteria are calculated only on the basis of one middle category, namely the annual turnover. Over the past ten years, many proposals have been made to add environmental and social dimensions to the BSC to enable business sustainability to be measured.
Proposals have been made to add a fifth dimension to the scorecard to address environmental aspects [103].
Conclusions