Floods and power cuts – just another day on the London Underground

I have been in London twice this week and I have been delayed on the underground twice. First it was flooding that closed a bunch of stations (including one I needed to use), and today it was power cuts that closed the Circle line for I don’t know how long. Readers outside the UK won’t recognise the details, but will certainly recognise the frustration this adds to the already arduous task of moving around a capital city.

Thankfully, in the London of 2009, this is a relatively rare occurrence. However, London of 2019 or 2059 might tell a different story. Scientists tell us that we need to prepare for climate change and that climate change is going to mean more extreme weather conditions occurring more frequently. Temperatures will get uncomfortably hot more often - perhaps 70 days in the year instead of the handful we experience at the moment. We will have less rainfall in the summer, and more in the winter.

This is the pioneering work being presented by UKCIP, leading the world in trying to predict what the effect of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere will have on our climate. UK Climate Projections 2009 is a brand, spanking new report that uses the best scientific and statistical techniques available to predict what the UK climate will feel like in 10, 20 or 100 years’ time. What I find particularly impressive, however, is that all of the data is being made available, including the assumptions of, for example, how much CO2 we continue to pump skywards.

They have included, for the first time, the full range of confidence levels that can be extracted from the data. This is good news for all those journalists who write for The Sun – plenty of headline grabbing scare mongering to be had for those who go in for such things. But also a wealth of valuable data for professionals who want to make the best of available data to look 50 – 100 years into the future. Which is, coincidentally the life of a building or a railway track for example.

Unless our tube and railway infrastructures are upgraded The Sun’s headline writers will have had it about right – we will be in for summers of misery and winters of cancelled train services.

All this was hosted at the Institute of Mechanical Engineers – perhaps the very people we should be blaming for getting us into this CO2 pickle in the first place. It was engineers who taught us how to use carbon-based fuels with such efficiency. But let’s not quibble – they are making up for it now with some intelligent and thought provoking debates about how to move forward. And we have to face facts – there are not too many of us prepared to give up our washing machines or cars for the sake of the planet.

With a bit of luck, however, and some critical analysis of the data, policy makers will have a better view of what’s in store going forward. Which means I will be much less forgiving when they close underground stations for either “unexpected” floods or power cuts due to a certain type of leaf on the line.

In the meantime I’m resting my tired feet after having trekked half way across London to get home. All that, and it was a hotter day than the weather forecasters had predicted. Ironic, non?

UKCP09 is published by UKCIP and is available to download from

www.ukcip.org.uk.

The Great Climate Changing Debate

The end of the world is nigh! We are all going to die. Or fry. Or get 2 degrees warmer. Or something. Anyway, it’s not good, and Something Has To Be Done.

The Great Climate Debate at Reading University had a number of eminent scientists, researchers and thinkers; all sharing their views. The debate was about geo-engineering, or Playing God as it might be more succinctly described. Geo-engineering is all about manipulating the earth’s climate or atmosphere so as to moderate global warming. It doesn’t fix things; it just slows things down or reduces the effect. But it has to be large-scale - geo-engineering is not about tinkering – only grand gestures have any chance of doing good.

Unhelpful flippancy aside, it appears that something does indeed have to be done. Whilst the debate about the climate goes on, there is little doubt that we are pumping unhealthy amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And there is no immediate likelihood of us stopping – we like to light and heat our homes, we like driving wherever and whenever we want to. So we have to look at all options. The question is which ones, and to what degree do we fund them?

Do we paint the roads and buildings white? Well, no. As it turns out we inhabit too small an area of the earth’s surface for that to be useful. What about pumping sea-water into the clouds? Yes – good idea – but it needs money for research and how reversible is it? It is certainly a novel idea to cool down the planet - a bit like giving it a cold shower every now and again.

All of this is based on modelling what we think might happen if we go on as we are at present. Of course there are lots of assumptions in this – not least of which is that we will go on as we are now. This is a big assumption, because we may not. Energy prices might increase to the point where we start switching off lights we don’t need. Or new, cleaner ways of generating electricity might come on stream. I’m thinking of nuclear fusion, of course, which is admittedly still some years away, but so is all this geo-engineering.

What was most impressive about the debate was both the quality of the professional presentations, and the heat of discussion afterwards. Forgive the pun, but people really did feel strongly. There was enormous disagreement about how to move forward, but then I think that’s true of the energy debate overall. But people were certainly engaged in the issues. It was a thought-provoking and very worthwhile evening.

Dangerous targets

A few days ago I made reference to Locke and Latham’s attack on using anecdotal evidence to “prove” a point. The rigours of research well done and properly carried out should provide information that is more dependable than hearsay.

However, during the course of our working lives we inevitably hear details of managers who have successfully or unsuccessfully used devices such as targets in performance management. One such story, from the 1950’s, demonstrates just how dangerous targets can be when left unchecked.

The North of Scotland Hydro Electricity Board was formed in 1943 after 50 years of successfully generating hydro electricity in the highlands of Scotland. They set out grand and ambitious plans to bring not only electricity to every home in Scotland, but also much needed employment. Their schemes did not go unopposed, but eventually won out and what turned out to be several decades of building hydro electricity plants across Scotland started.

The work involved tunnelling and blasting through mountainous areas to form the infrastructure for the hydro electric plants. It was dangerous work, often done by immigrants who were paid well, and incentivised to work quickly. Overtime was freely available, and eagerly taken up, despite the risks of having tired men working in dangerous conditions.

The overheads on the construction projects were significant and the faster the work could be completed, the better. In the absence of health and safety laws, and high targets for both managers and workers, risk taking was an everyday occurrence.

Many lost their lives and limbs in an atmosphere that valued speed over human life. The final tally for those that perished during the construction of such schemes has been lost – despite the relative recentness of the work. It is a stark reminder of what unchecked corporate targets can achieve.

Yes, the work was completed, but not without significant loss of life and not without construction failures. Since then, of course, different laws have been passed that do not allow such dangerous working conditions.

Walking in the peaceful highlands of Scotland now much of the hydro works are hidden – only the dams and power stations are visible. So it is easy to forget the toil and hardship suffered by those who built them. But it is a reminder that whilst targets might be a powerful weapon, they need to be used responsibly.

Six rules about risk (and life)

One of my favourite software writers observes that the quickest way to deliver a project is not to make mistakes. It is good advice (although not that easy to follow), and risk management is part of project and performance management. As many organisations have too graphically illustrated, there is little point in aiming for peak performance if you destroy the very organisation you are trying to manage.

A friend recently sent me Dr Aswath Damodaran’s Six Rules of Risk Management, which I liked a lot. At the considerable risk of getting a reputation for loving lists, here it is:

1. Where there is an upside there is also a downside
2. There are no free lunches
3. There is no risk in the past - study the past but remember risk is in the future
4. Risk management is everyone’s problem
5. Plan to be a risk taker - hire the right people
6. Do everything you want to manage risk, but at the end of the day you also need luck.

An interesting list – I would quibble slightly with 2 and 6 – but no more than quibble. A lunch, at the end of the day is a lunch; losing Barings Bank (or whatever) is a little more serious. And luck is a highly debatable entity, don’t you think?