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: sjofn.kjartansdottir@gmail.com/sjofn13@ru.is. 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.