The Project Sponsor – a critical success factor Sjöfn Kjartansdóttir Thesis of 12 ECTS credits Master of Project Management (MPM) May 2015
The Project Sponsor – a critical success factor
Sjöfn Kjartansdóttir
Thesis of 12 ECTS credits
Master of Project Management (MPM)
May 2015
The Project Sponsor – a critical success factor
Sjöfn Kjartansdóttir
Thesis of 12 ECTS credits submitted to the School of Science and
Engineering
at Reykjavík University in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Project Management
May 2015
Supervisor:
Dr. Helgi Þór Ingason,
Associate Professor, Reykjavík University, Iceland
The Project Sponsor – a critical success factor
Sjöfn Kjartansdóttir
12 ECTS thesis submitted to the School of Science and Engineering
at Reykjavík University in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Project Management (MPM).
May 2015
Student:
___________________________________________
Sjöfn Kjartansdóttir
Supervisor:
___________________________________________
Dr. Helgi Þór Ingason
Department:
___________________________________________
4
THE PROJECT SPONSOR – A CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTOR
Sjöfn Kjartansdóttir1
Paper presented as part of requirements for the degree of Master of Project
Management (MPM) Reykjavik University - May 2015
ABSTRACT
All pioneering work needs extraordinary sponsorship from a powerful, motivating,
visionary and experienced sponsor, in order for a project to be successful. The project
sponsor is known as a critical success factor of projects in the project management
literature. It would be of great value for project management success, culture and
professionalism, to draw the attention of the sponsor and others to this critical role and
its specific responsibilities. The role needs to be established, not accidental. Part of
project management is to anchor the project to a sponsor, someone with exceptional
communication skills and the ability to overcome whatever obstacles might impede the
success of the project. The research presented in this paper reveals the perspective of
the sponsor himself on the role and on success. The findings show that importance and
effect of strong sponsorship needs greater emphasis.
1. INTRODUCTION
Some projects succeed and, perhaps unsurprisingly, some fail. Naturally, we believe
that success is the goal of most projects, but despite extensive research into project
management, increasingly well-educated project managers and the application and
practice of professional project management over recent decades, a number of projects
continue to fail.
Failure is potentially useful, because from failure we can gain understanding
and knowledge, and from knowledge we gain wisdom. With insight and wisdom we
can become truly successful. Several very interesting studies on failure have been
conducted in order to reveal the cause and, subsequently, help prevent it. Other studies
have focused on success, seeking out the best ways to achieve it. This study focuses on
one of the most important success factors in projects, the project sponsor.
When reviewing project management literature, one can say that a general
consensus has been reached on the importance of the project sponsor’s role in any given
project. The role is typically seen as a transitory one, performed alongside other more
important duties of the senior executive. It is a role often undertaken by people who do
not practice project management methods in their daily work and are not always
familiar with what their responsibilities are. Most worrying, is the scenario when a
sponsor is unaware even that the role does indeed come with specific responsibilities.
1 Sjöfn Kjartansdóttir (1965), female, Product Manager at Kvikna Medical, MPM Candidate (Master of
Project Management), email: [email protected]/[email protected]. Reykjavík University,
School of Science and Engineering, Reykjavík, Iceland.
5
All pioneering work needs extraordinary sponsorship from a powerful,
motivating, visionary and experienced sponsor, someone with exceptional
communication skills and the ability to overcome whatever obstacles might impede the
success of the project.
The author of this paper decided to explore the role and responsibilities of the
project sponsor by discussing it with existing sponsors in five different project-driven
companies. The aim of the study was to ascertain whether the term “Project Sponsor”
is known and used within these companies; whether the project sponsors are familiar
with their role and responsibilities; if they have had any training for the role and finally,
what it is they contribute to the project’s success.
Project sponsors are generally busy, pragmatic, senior managers who are hard
to tie down. To have them sit down together, as we did for this piece of research, and
reflect on their own roles was, one might say, as challenging as rounding up wild horses.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
For clarification, we have divided the literature review into three sections: Definitions
of the role, general literature, and finally we introduce a model designed by a former
MPM student at Reykjavik University, to evaluate the sponsor.
DEFINITIONS OF THE PROJECT SPONSOR’S ROLE
To start with, it is interesting to see how organisations such as the International Project
Management Association (IPMA), the Association for Project Management (APM) and
the Project Management Institute (PMI) define the project sponsor. Furthermore, we
take a look at how the role is described in the ISO 21500 standard on Project
Management and how the National Competence Baseline for Scandinavia (NCB)
defines the project sponsor.
The third edition of the IPMA Competence Baseline (ICB) was published in
2006 and does not discuss the role of the project sponsor to a large extent. The role is
mentioned in 3.06 Business, where the ICB states that this role should be appointed and
made responsible for the business case. However, the role of the project owner is
mentioned in several places: 1.09 Project structures, 1.20 Close-out, 2.12 Conflict &
crisis, 2.13 Reliability and 3.02 Programme orientation (IPMA, 2006). In some
instances, the term ‘project sponsor’ could be viewed as interchangeable with ‘project
owner’, and it will be interesting to see if the project sponsor’s role will take greater
prominence or be addressed more specifically in the fourth edition of the ICB, to be
published later this year.
The APM Body of Knowledge Definitions states that sponsorship belongs in
the context part. “Sponsorship of a project, programme or portfolio is an important
senior management role. The sponsor is accountable for ensuring that the work is
governed effectively and delivers the objectives that meet identified needs.”
(Association for Project Management, 2015, p. 4).
The APM Body of Knowledge discusses the role to quite some extent
throughout their set of concepts. The sponsor plays a major role throughout the project
lifecycle, is important to project success, in decision making and change control. He is
6
presented as the owner of the business case and plays an important role in the
governance of projects (Association for Project Management, 2012).
The US-based PMI describes the sponsor as “the person or group who provides
resources and support for the project and is accountable for enabling success” (PMI,
2013, p. 32). In addition, the PMI states that the project sponsor can be external or
internal, meaning that he can be within the organisation of the project manager or not.
The PMI further describes the role of the sponsor as being a spokesperson for the project
within the organization, as well as leading the project from initiation through to project
closure and transfer of deliverables into the business. He may be involved in authorising
changes in scope and decisions, particularly those involving a high degree of risk. He
serves as an escalation path for issues that are beyond the control of the project manager
(PMI, 2013).
The ISO 21500 standard, Guidance on Project Management, identifies project
sponsors as one of its target reader groups “in order to provide them with a better
understanding of the principles and practice of project management and to help them
give appropriate support and guidance to their project managers, project management
teams and project teams;” (ISO, 2012, p. v).
The standard describes the role of the sponsor in several chapters. In section
3.4.2 Opportunity evaluation and project initiation, it is suggested that a project sponsor
is identified to be responsible for project goals and benefits. Section 3.6 Governance,
describes subjects that are included in project governance such as defining the
management structure; policies, processes and methodologies to be used; limits of
authority for decision making; stakeholder responsibilities and accountabilities;
interactions, such as reporting and the escalation of issues or risks. The standard states
that these are usually the responsibility of the project sponsor or the project steering
committee (ISO, 2012).
Figure 1. Project stakeholders (ISO, 2012, p. 7)
Furthermore, the ISO 21500 standard describes governance in projects as the
role of the sponsor when it comes to the authorisation of projects, executive decision
making, and problem or conflict solving beyond the project manager’s authority. The
standard identifies the project steering committee or board when it comes to providing
senior level guidance.
7
The Danish Project Management Association has published National
Competence Baseline (NCB) for project managers, where the importance of the role of
project sponsor is emphasised throughout the project lifetime. It is interesting to see
that the terms project owner/sponsor are not differentiated, see Figure 2.
The Association’s NCB points out that since the role of the project manager and
project sponsor overlap in many ways, it is necessary to plan the role division of the
two. The sponsor plays a leading part in anchoring the project upward to the interested
parties or stakeholders. And the project sponsor is key to developing project
management professionalism (The Danish Project Management Association, 2009).
Figure 2. Competencies in Project Management. NCB, the National Competence
Baseline for Scandinavia (The Danish Project Management Association, 2009, p. 27).
GENERAL LITERATURE REVIEW
If we take a look at what has been discussed in project management literature generally
in the past decade or so, several very interesting observations have been made about the
project sponsor role, and it would appear that the level of attention paid to it is growing.
In 1994 the Standish Group first published its CHAOS report on success and
failures in IT projects. It publishes variant revisions of the original report on an annual
basis, drawing on its growing research database. The Group’s findings have contributed
significantly to current knowledge, and this increased understanding of success and
failures in IT projects can be effectively transferred to other types of projects. Standish
identified the project sponsor’s role as a very important one, early on. In its 2013 report,
it emphasises this role as the number one success factor for small projects (The Standish
Group, 2013).
In 2003, Hall, Holt and Purchase pointed out in their paper, that an effective
project sponsor could make a significant impact on the success of projects. They
8
concluded their paper with this statement: “Therefore efforts should be made to
legitimise the position through professionalising its status and offering opportunities
for training and personal development” (Hall, Holt, & Purchase, 2003, p. 502).
Englund and Bucero who have explored the role of project sponsor to an
impressive extent, define sponsorship as a commitment by management to define,
defend and support major activities from the start to the end of the project. They
emphasise that in order to ensure project success, the project manager and the project
sponsor must work closely together. They also discuss the need for sponsorship training
and best practices awareness. In fact, their book touches on the sponsorship aspect of
projects from a very wide angle. They developed a sponsor evaluation tool, which
indicates the risk in projects if sponsorship is low (Englund & Bucero, 2006).
The close relationship of the project manager and the project sponsor is often
part of the discussion throughout the literature. Sometimes the roles seem to overlap
and possibly cause confusion, as we mentioned earlier and show in Figure 2. The two
roles certainly share responsibilities of delivering both project deliverables and project
outcomes, but the role of the sponsor is more strategic and more senior. Patton and
Shechet discuss this in their paper, pointing out that many project sponsors have limited
knowledge or understanding of the role (Patton & Shechet, 2007).
Even though Morgan et al approach the topic from a programme or portfolio
management perspective, their discussion of sponsorship can easily be adapted to
projects generally. They describe very well how sponsorship brings critical discipline
and support to portfolio management. Furthermore, they emphasise the importance of
effective sponsorship on time to decision, meaning how long an organisation takes to
make a decision regarding the scope, schedule and resources for strategic projects. They
claim that “slow decisions cost more because the meter on cost never stops running”
(Morgan, Levitt, & Malek, 2007, p. 145).
In their book “Executing your strategy. How to break it down & get it done”,
Morgan et al state that a well-designed sponsorship system provides senior-level
support for project managers and creates a forum that guides the decisions to be made
throughout the project. They claim that sponsors offer valuable help in terms of scope,
schedule and resources. In addition, they state that “Good sponsorship brings vision,
commitment, accountability, and empowerment to the project portfolio environment”
(Morgan, Levitt, & Malek, 2007, p. 147).
There has been some confusion regarding the role of project sponsor versus the
role of project champion. In his paper from 2008, “Perceptions of the impact of project
sponsorship practices on project success”, Bryde explains this quite well. The project
sponsor role is generally accepted as being on a senior management level. The sponsor
defines the business benefits, monitors the business environment and has authority to
ensure appropriate and ongoing commitment of resources. The project champion role
does not require any kind of seniority, but is capable of inspiring the environment and
breaking down resistance within the organisation. The champion is the project’s
advocate, the day-to-day spokesperson. Projects may have one or more champions and
the role of the champion can be performed by the sponsor, but not necessarily (Bryde,
2008).
9
Bryde further explains in his paper “that if organisations wish to maximise
project success they need to ensure that the project sponsor role is defined and
communicated to those carrying out the role in such a way that it incorporates fulfilling
both the traditional activities of client representative and the supporting activities
associated with the internal sponsor” (Bryde, 2008, p. 807).
Kerzner describes the responsibilities of a project sponsor as to provide
guidance for the project manager, as well as ensure that line managers fulfil their
commitments on resources. They are also responsible for communication with
customers. Generally, project sponsors are upper-level managers, but the role may be
assigned to middle-level managers on lower-priority projects or maintenance projects.
Kerzner further explains that a small project may not need a sponsor, he is more
important in large, complex projects involving a heavy commitment of resources. It is
interesting to see that Kerzner introduces the idea of sponsorship by a committee.
Kerzner describes how the role of project sponsor changes over the life cycle of the
project: he is more active in the planning and initiation phase, supporting and guiding
the project manager. In this phase, his role in anchoring the project to the company’s
strategy and communicating with customers is very important (Kerzner, 2013). This
correlates well with the NCB for Scandinavia guidelines, where the role has more
importance in the planning stages and less importance in the execution stage, as shown
in Figure 2 in this paper.
West made a valuable contribution when he published his book on project
sponsorship in 2010. His extensive work identifies not only the role of the project
sponsor, but also the nature of project sponsorship. He discusses the value of project
sponsorship to the organisation and how to select project sponsors. According to West,
the project sponsor is increasingly vital to the survival of not only projects, but
organizations in general. In an ever-changing environment, particularly in terms of
technology, and the ever-increasing demand from customers to get more value, the
sponsor plays a key role in managing the business case and ensuring that the
organisation is not only doing things right, but, and more importantly, doing the right
things (West, 2010).
It is also interesting to take a look at leadership perspectives when studying the
project sponsor. In their book, Project-Oriented Leadership, Müller and Turner talk
about components of competence, based on the work of Lynn Crawford. These
components are: Input competences that refer to knowledge and skills; Personal
competences that refer to the personal profile or experience and inherent or trained
skills; and finally Output competences, that refer to the ability to perform. The total
competence is composed of all three (Müller & Turner, 2010). The author of this paper
thinks this is very relevant to the project sponsor role, since leadership skills are
important for sponsors if they are required to motivate and drive projects as described
in the previous literature.
In their book “Project Leadership”, Briner et al discuss how the sponsorship role
is much misunderstood by sponsors and project leaders alike and how it needs to be
made explicit. They point out that as projects are temporary organisational vehicles,
they always herald some changes and, therefore, need a spokesperson at an authoritative
level. The sponsor is not, according to them, responsible for the execution of the project,
but for marketing the project internally by championing and motivating the project
10
team, managing the politics, door-opening, networking and problem solving. Their role
is to make sure that the organisational climate around the project is healthy. The
collaboration of the project manager and the project sponsor is highly emphasised in
the book (Briner, Hastings, & Geddes, 2011).
It is very interesting to see how the authors identify three elements of the role:
signpost, architect and sustainer, see Figure 3.
Figure 3. A Sponsor’s Role (Briner, Hastings, & Geddes, 2011, p. 66).
Gower Publishing Ltd., published a Handbook of People in Project
Management in 2013, where different authors wrote about the different roles and
responsibilities. Karsten Isenbeck and Joel Friedman wrote the book’s chapter on the
project sponsor. According to their definition, “Project sponsors may be business
owners or directors, organisational executives or middle managers, such as programme
managers, operational managers, asset managers or cost-centre owners (Lock & Scott,
2013, p. 39).
Through extensive literature review and their own work they concluded that the
role is influenced by several factors, such as the industry, the project management
culture and the project type and complexity. The role requires a certain level of seniority
and requires the sponsor to be available and provide timely support and decision making
(Lock & Scott, 2013).
PROJECT SPONSOR EVALUATION MODEL
Dr. Helgi Þór Ingason, the supervisor of this paper has, for some years now, conducted
a Master’s course on Project programmes, portfolios and sponsors, at Reykjavik
University in Iceland (T-812). This course forms part of the Master of Project
Management (MPM) programme. One of Dr. Ingason’s MPM students, Þorvaldur Örn
Arnarson, developed a model in 2009, to measure the strength of the project sponsor.
11
The model is based on revision of other models in the literature, where the competences
are classified into Governance, Support and Anchoring, see Figure 4.
Figure 4. The Eye of Project Sponsorship (Arnarson, 2009).
Arnarson presented this model in an unpublished paper, as part of his work on
the MPM degree. His results show the testing of the model on 15 project participants:
nine project managers, three project sponsors, two members of a steering group and one
executive. The results show that these participants found such a tool useful for
evaluating the sponsorship of projects (Arnarson, 2009).
The tool was used during the deliberative discussions in the study presented in
this paper and evaluated by the sponsors concerned.
12
3. RESEARCH METHOD The research presented in this paper focuses on the project sponsor as a success factor
in projects, and on the sponsor’s awareness and understanding of the role.
As described earlier, in the introduction to this paper, the project sponsor is not
always aware of his/her role and responsibilities, since his background is not necessarily
from the project management field, but typically more from a senior executive
environment. This different background can reveal interesting views on how to promote
success in the sponsored projects.
When choosing a method for this research, it had to be kept in mind that the aim
was to encourage the sponsors to express their views and ideas about the role and about
success as freely as possible. It was considered important to limit pre-defined wording
as much as possible. A quantitative approach, such as a pre-designed questionnaire
where the participant would scale different project management terms and/or success
criteria, was therefore not a feasible option. The ever-challenging time management
issue for senior executives was also a threat to the level of responsiveness to such a
questionnaire. The researcher had to find a way to enable the selected sponsors to
express their opinions openly, in their own words and within a limited amount of time.
A qualitative approach, such as an in-depth interview method, is a good option
for this purpose. However, the researcher decided to choose a less known method in the
research field, deliberative discussion, in order to allow project sponsors within
companies to meet and discuss their possibly different ideas about the sponsor’s role
and how each promotes success in their own projects. In this way, they could potentially
learn from each other and clarify the role within their company to some extent.
Deliberative discussion and the deliberative process is believed to have an
educational effect and improve the quality of opinions. It encourages the participants to
discover to what degree their own opinions conflict or are in agreement with the other
participants’ views. This potentially leads to a transformation of views and may even
create a more consistent view (Hansen, 2004).
The method is used to measure the effect of discussion and information flow
within groups. It is typically used on larger samples of the public to engage them in
political discussion where the public is likely to have little information (Fishkin,
Luskin, & Jowell, 2000).
These are not in-depth interviews, but informative discussions, where the
sponsors as specialists discuss their ideas of the role with each other in the presence and
under passive guidance of the researcher. It is not necessary for them to reach any
conclusion during the discussion, but they express their individual opinions in writing
at the end of the session.
Project sponsors from five companies took part in the study. The companies
were selected with regards to size of company (100 employees or more) and the practice
of project management methods within the company. The researcher did not have any
prior personal connection to the companies or the sponsors. However, it must be noted
that the small community and short communication lines in Iceland make senior
executives more available for such research when someone knows a person who knows
13
the senior executive. The choice of companies was, therefore, not entirely random.
Where a personal contact was available, it was used to reach the senior executive.
The five companies operate in five different fields: innovation; energy/utility;
pharmaceutical; consulting/engineering; and consulting/information technology (IT). A
work session of one hour was organised within each company, where two-four sponsors
attended. The total number of participants was 14.
The sessions were managed by the researcher in collaboration with a contact
person within the company, one session per company. The sessions were on average 60
min long (50-70 min). The agenda in the sessions was as follows:
1. A short introduction to the research and the deliberative discussion method (~5
min).
2. First questionnaire answered by the participants. Here we asked about: Gender,
age, education, position within company, followed by three questions where
participants ranked their knowledge of the sponsor role; their estimation of the
importance of the role, and finally their training and awareness of the role. The
scale was 1-5, where 1 indicated low and 5 indicated high. For further
explanation of the scales, see results for each question (~5 min).
3. Short presentation by the researcher, about the project sponsor’s role as it
appears in the literature and about the contents of Þorvaldur Örn Arnarson’s
sponsor model (~20 min).
4. Deliberative discussion about the role and responsibilities in terms of personal
experience. Discussed successful projects and how, as sponsors, the participants
promote success in projects (~30 min).
5. The sponsors then completed the sponsor model for a particular project they had
recently sponsored (project of their own choice) and evaluated the model itself
(~10 min). In two companies it was not possible to do this during the session
itself, and the model was sent by e-mail to those participants. This explains why
only twelve participants filled out the model and/or evaluated it; not all of them
returned the email with the model.
6. Lastly, the sponsors answered a short questionnaire, similar to the first one. In
this questionnaire the participants once more scaled their knowledge of the
sponsor role and their estimation of its importance. Additionally there were
questions about how the project sponsor can promote success in projects; what
competences he/she needs to have and whether sponsors need more training for
the role (~5 min).
After each session the researcher made a short report on what points were revealed
during the discussion, gathering the results from the two questionnaires and from the
evaluation model. The results are presented in the following part of this paper.
14
4. RESEARCH RESULTS A total of 14 people took part in the deliberative discussions for this study: nine men
and five women. Two were in the age range of 26-35; three in the age range of 36-45;
four in the age range of 46-55; and five in the age range of 56-67.
The educational background of the participants was as follows: Six have an MSc
degree, six have a BSc degree and two have an MPM degree (Master of Project
Management). The sponsors’ positions within the companies were: One CEO; two
Heads of division; two Heads of department; one Quality Manager; four Senior
Technical Managers and four Senior Project Managers.
All claimed that project sponsoring was part of their job, even though they were
not all familiar with the term when the deliberative discussion started. The term Project
Sponsor is used in two of the five companies, not in three of them. Most of the
participants claimed that they were sponsoring numerous projects at any one time, with
numbers of projects ranging from 1-30.
According to the participants it tends to be senior managers, heads of divisions
or heads of departments, senior project managers, product owners, technical managers
and company CEOs who take the role of project sponsor. Typically these are
experienced employees who have extensive knowledge and can educate others, people
with 15+ years’ experience in the workplace (not necessarily the same workplace, but
in the field) and people who have proven professional and communication skills.
The average individual knowledge of the project sponsor’s role at the start of
the deliberative discussions was 3.29 on the scale of 1-5, where 1 equals little
knowledge and 5 equals much knowledge. The range was 1-5. The average individual
knowledge of the project sponsor’s role after the deliberative discussion was 3.75. The
range was 2-5. Average increase 0.46, the difference is not significant (p=0.084). The
range of answers was from -1.5 to +2.0. Individual results in Figure 5:
Figure 5. Individual ratings of knowledge of the project sponsor’s role before and
after the deliberative discussion.
15
The participants estimated the importance of the project sponsor at the start of
the deliberative discussion to be on average 4.14 on the scale of 1-5, where 1 equals not
important and 5 equals very important. The range was 2-5. The participants estimated
the importance of the project sponsor to be 4.43 after the deliberative discussion. The
range was 3-5. Average increase 0.29, the difference is not significant (p=0.104). The
range of answers was from -1 to +1. Individual results in Figure 6:
Figure 6. Individual ratings of importance of the sponsor’s role, before and after the
deliberative discussion.
The individual information or training level for the project sponsor role was on
average 2.14 on a scale of 1-5, where 1 equals little training and information and 5
equals much training and information. The range was 1-4.
In the second questionnaire, the participants were asked to suggest how the
project sponsor can promote success in projects. The following table shows each of the
answers, as stated by the participants. Some answers are repeated in the lists, as more
than one participant gave the same or a similar answer. The answers have been
classified into three categories by the researcher: Governance, support and leadership.
This classification is explained in the discussions. See Table 1, below:
16
GOVERNANCE SUPPORT LEADERSHIP
More formal responsibilities Show support Open communication
Documentation Show support in practice Teamwork
Expectation management Build support Change management
Keep communication open
with owner
Strong support Good and human
communication
Active risk analysis Support Close cooperation of the
team
Perform a detailed request
analysis early
Good support Know the skills, abilities
and knowledge of team
members
Good information flow Support and advice Understand the
interaction of team
members
Communicate the goals of
the project
Support the project
manager
Good communication
with project manager
Ensure clear vision of the
project’s goals
Break barriers Better/closer team
building
(internal/external)
Provide resources Foresee barriers in order to
avoid them
Be interested in and give
attention to the project
Ensure objectives/clear goals Break barriers
Ensure budget Act on problems early
Set priority Support the project
manager
Clear project definition in
the initial phase
Monitor, not direct
participation or
responsibility
Clear project definition Devil’s advocate –
guardian of missing issues
Formally identified and
available
Intervention if necessary
Guardian the project
Make ground for the project
– in the environment
Table 1. Individual answers on how the project sponsor can promote success in
projects.
17
The participants were also asked what competences the project sponsor should
have. The responses are set out in the following table. Some answers are repeated, as
more than one participant gave the same or a similar answer. The answers have been
classified into the three competence categories from the IPMA Competence Baseline,
ICB: Contextual, Technical and Behavioural. See Table 2, below:
Contextual
competences
Technical competences Behavioural competences
Extensive knowledge of
the project
Understanding of team
members’ abilities and
knowledge
Credibility within the
organisation
Drive the project Organised Senior position – credibility
Take ownership of the
project
Analytical skills Respectful, so that project
manager and others listen to
his advice (credibility)
Extensive experience in
the relevant field
Organised Powerful within the
organisation
Ability to shape and
communicate the vision
of the project
Knowledge Communication skills
Good perspective on the
project
Good professional and
technical overview
Personal strength
Give the project manager
freedom to act but
provide needed
information
Extensive technical
knowledge
Good communication skills
and ability to facilitate
communication within the
project
Sales and marketing
understanding
Good human interaction
skills
Good overview Positivity
Experience Good communication skills
Motivational skills
Be firm
Good communication skills
Resourcefulness
Determined
Positive
Communication skills
Table 2. Individual answers on what competences the project sponsor should have.
18
The following points in Table 3 are the answers of participants to the question:
Do you think project sponsors need formal training for the role? Explain your answer.
YES NO
Yes, I think it is always good to get training in any
position you take. Good to understand expectations and
get good advice. Makes you think.
No, I think we are doing very
well.
In order for a project to succeed, it is feasible to train the
project sponsor in his role and how he can provide what
is expected from him.
No question about it! We need to know and understand
this role, the responsibilities and the expectations.
Yes, very important that he understands his role and the
project manager’s role.
Yes, training clarifies the role and responsibilities and the
project sponsor will feel more confident.
Yes, he needs to understand the ideology.
Yes, even though the role ends up in the hands of people
who are experienced, with extensive knowledge and
people with good communication skills and who are
trustworthy.
Yes, supports professional project management, sets a
frame around the project.
Yes, this role should be more highlighted.
Yes, whether it is called sponsor training or executive
training – training yes, because the sponsor’s support is
necessary for projects to succeed.
Table 3. Individual answers on if the sponsor needs a formal training for the role.
19
Finally, presented here in Figure 7, are the results of the evaluation from the
participants, on the sponsor model that was cited earlier in this paper. This evaluation
is part of the model and is compared to the results of Mr. Arnarson himself in the
discussion part of this paper.
The scale in the model is 1-5, where 1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=neither
agree nor disagree; 4=agree and 5=strongly agree. The evaluation looked at whether or
not the model was easy to use, took too much time, reflected actual levels of
sponsorship, and was easy to understand and if participants would recommend it for
use.
Figure 7. Average results from the feedback of Eye of Project Sponsorship model.
20
5. DISCUSSION The author of this paper decided to explore the role and responsibilities of the project
sponsor by discussing it with existing sponsors in five different companies. The aim of
the study was to ascertain whether the term “Project Sponsor” is known and used within
these companies; whether the project sponsors are familiar with their role and
responsibilities; if they have had any training for the role and finally, what it is they
contribute to the project’s success.
Upon first contact with the five companies it became clear that the term is only
used in two of the five. However, the Icelandic word for sponsor is very descriptive and
well known in the language, so most of the contacts quickly connected to it and
confirmed that the role exists within their company. The role may not always be
formally identified for projects. It is sometimes shared by two or more persons within
the company during the lifetime of a project and sometimes shared with a person on the
customer’s side of a project. In one company, the role was not known at all, but those
effectively in the 'sponsor role' decided to use it for future projects. In all of the
discussions the issue of formally identifying the sponsor for clarification was raised as
a potentially crucial one, and sponsors expressed a desire to do so in any future projects.
The sponsors within all of the companies immediately recognised the roles and
responsibilities of the project sponsor when the researcher introduced the relevant
descriptions from a range of literature. Their understanding varied, but they were all
familiar with most of it. All of them noted that they did not really see it as an isolated
role, but part of their senior position within the company. This correlates with the
literature where the role is seen as part-time, shared with other roles and responsibilities.
The knowledge of the role varied from 1-5 initially. The sponsors’ average knowledge
rating did not significantly improve during the discussion. Although many of them
described an improvement of knowledge, the researcher’s attention was especially
drawn to one participant, who rated his knowledge at 5 when the discussion started and
then a lesser level of 3.5 at the end. This bears out the concerns muted in the
introduction to this paper that some sponsors are unaware even that the role comes with
specific responsibilities, let alone what they actually are. Our assumption here is that as
a result of the discussion this sponsor came to realise that he was not as knowledgeable
of the role as he thought he was.
All the sponsors who participated in this study agreed that the role was
important. At the start of the discussion, they already rated the role of high importance,
as shown in the results. This explains the fact that importance of the role did not change
significantly, on average, after the discussion.
When asked if they had had any training for the role, four of the sponsors stated
that they did, albeit some years ago. One sponsor made the connection between
traditional executive training and sponsor training. All the others claimed that they had
had little training, on average 2.14 out of 5. All but one expressed an interest in more
training. An opportunity can clearly be seen here. As was mentioned in the literature
review, Hall et al have pointed out that the legitimisation of the position in projects
would professionalise its status and offer opportunities for training. This correlates also
with the findings of Bryde. In companies where operations are mainly project driven,
it makes perfect sense, therefore, to incorporate extensive project sponsor training in all
(senior) executive training.
21
All of the sponsors agreed that they have an important impact on a project’s
success. The less experienced the project manager, the greater the need for a sponsor’s
intervention during the lifetime of the project. There was definitely a strong focus on
the governance aspect, to lay the ground for the project, which means that the sponsor
needs to have a senior position within the organisation’s structure. The role is strongly
linked to knowledge, power and credibility. This correlates very well with the available
literature. Morgan et al talk about senior support and discipline, as well as the role of
the sponsor as a forum for support in decision-making for the project manager. Bryde
also emphasises the importance of the sponsor in defining the business benefits,
monitoring the business environment and possessing the authority to ensure appropriate
and ongoing commitment of resources.
A very interesting result in the study presented here, was the emphasis that the
sponsors themselves put on the behavioural competences, the ability to facilitate
communication and to motivate the team by being positive and firm. This reveals that
the project sponsor needs to have certain leadership skills, credibility and seniority,
which also correlates with the literature. We admit that the emphasis, however, was
stronger than expected in comparison to other competences. Therefore, we decided to
create a new category within the skillset for the sponsor and call it “Leadership”. The
former category of anchoring, from Mr. Arnarson’s model, is more of a project manager
skillset, which, in a way, makes it confusing when discussing the role of the sponsor.
Another argument for changing the anchoring part of the model is that the term
“anchoring” is used with a different meaning in the literature, as within the NCB, where
anchoring relates more to governance.
The evaluation of Mr. Arnarson’s model did not turn out as successfully as it
did in his own study. This may indicate that the tool suits project managers better than
project sponsors. A further development of this tool should be considered. Such a tool
should be tested on project sponsors and adjusted to their needs in training.
The method of deliberative discussion was challenging, both for the researcher
and for the participants. The researcher’s challenge was to have the participants discuss
things with each other, as the tendency instead was very much towards explaining to
the researcher how things were within a particular company. In terms of the
participants, it should be reaffirmed that those taking part in the study were all senior
managers, all very well educated, very busy and above all, performance driven. We
therefore assume that the session was challenging for them, to sit down with colleagues
and potentially reveal a lack of understanding or disagree on a topic with which they
were not overly familiar, in what was a relatively short meeting, and with an outsider.
No one openly expressed that it was challenging, it is just an assumption from the
researcher.
6. CONCLUSIONS
The conclusion we can draw from this small study is that the term and the role of project
sponsor can have a different meaning in different companies, and is sometimes not
known at all. The role can be in the hands of one person, or shared with others during
the lifetime of a project. In some cases, the role is shared with a sponsor on the
customer’s side, and in some cases specialists are part of the sponsoring role, even if
they only participate and sponsor a small part of the project.
22
Research surrounding the project sponsor role represents an extensive body of
work, as reflected in the literature review in this paper. Yet it does not, by any means,
cover the subject completely. The research to date has gathered together an enormous
volume of data, and several attempts have been made to glean sensible information
from it. Yet still, the exact role of the project sponsor remains unclear. Perhaps more
importantly, it is also frequently outside the control of the project manager, due to the
fact that the sponsor is generally more senior and higher in the organisation’s hierarchy
than the project manager.
The role of the sponsor needs to be studied – within project teams and among
sponsors themselves – to a still greater extent than currently covered by existing
literature. According to this small study of 14 subjects, project sponsors are aware of
their roles, but formality and firmness is lacking. The importance and effect of strong
sponsorship needs greater emphasis. It should be established, not accidental.
There is a substantial opportunity with regards to information and training of
project sponsors within companies, theoretically delivering major benefits as they
represent a critical success factor of the projects they are involved with.
We think it would be interesting to approach a larger group of sponsors and to
have them describe their role in more detail than this study covers, by using a qualitative
approach encompassing individual interviews and deliberative discussions. It may be
of benefit also to use quantitative approaches, including questionnaires with predefined
answer options, with the aim of achieving a broader spectrum of opinion and data.
It would be of great value for project management success, culture and
professionalism, to draw the attention of the sponsor and others to this critical role and
its specific responsibilities.
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special thanks to my instructor and mentor Dr. Helgi Þór Ingason for his guidance, his
valuable input and inspiring cooperation on writing this paper. Very special thanks to
my fellow MPM students, to the fellowship of the Spades and to my family, for their
patience, motivation and solid support. And finally I would like to thank Naomi Grove
for her English proofreading and valuable input.
23
REFERENCES
Arnarson, Þ. (2009). The Eye of Project Sponsorship. Paper presented as part of
requirements for the degree of MPM. Reykjavík: University of Iceland.
Faculty of Industrial and Mechanical Engineering and Coputer Science.
Association for Project Management. (2012). APM Body of Knowledge.
Buckinghamshire: Association for Project Management.
Association for Project Management. (2015, April 13). Project Management: APM
Body of Knowledge. Retrieved from APM Association for Project
Management:
https://www.apm.org.uk/sites/default/files/FINAL%20proof%20BOK%206%
20definitions.pdf
Briner, W., Hastings, C., & Geddes, M. (2011). Project Leadership. Farnham: Gower
Publishing Company.
Bryde, D. (2008). Perceptions of the impact of project sponsorship practices on
project success. International Journal of Project Management (26), 800-809.
Englund, R., & Bucero, A. (2006). Project Sponsorship. San Francisco: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Fishkin, J., Luskin, R., & Jowell, R. (2000). Deliberative Polling and Public
Consultation. Parliamentary Affairs (53), 657-666.
Hall, M., Holt, R., & Purchase, D. (2003). Project sponsors under New Public
Management: lessons from the frontline. International Journal of Project
Management (21), 495-502.
Hansen, K. M. (2004). Deliberative Democracy and Opinion Formation. Odense:
University Press of Southern Denmark.
24
IPMA. (2006). ICB: IPMA Competence Baseline. Nijkerk: International Project
Management Association.
ISO. (2012). ISO 21500. Geneva: ISO Copyright Office.
Kerzner, H. (2013). Project Management. A Systems Approach to Planning,
Scheduling, and Controlling. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Lock, D., & Scott, L. (2013). Handbook of People in Project Management. Farnham:
Gower Publishing Ltd.
Morgan, M., Levitt, R., & Malek, W. (2007). Executing your strategy. How to break it
down & get it done. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Müller, R., & Turner, J. (2010). Project-Oriented Leadership. Farnham: Gower
Publishing Limited.
Patton, N., & Shechet, A. (2007). Wisdom for Building the Project Manager/Project
Sponsor Relationship: Partnership for Project Success. Crosstalk - The Journal
of Defense Software Engineering (November), 4-9.
PMI. (2013). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®
Guide). Pennsylvania: Project Management Institue, Inc.
The Danish Project Management Association. (2009). Competencies in Project
Management. NCB National Competence Baseline for Scandinavia. Hilleroed:
Danish Project Management Association.
The Standish Group. (2013). CHAOS Manifesto. Think Big, Act Small. The Standish
Group International, Incorporated.
West, D. (2010). Project Sponsorship. Farnham: Gower Publishing Limited.