Project Sponsorship Part I: Selecting a Sponsor

Nearly every technology project of any significance in an enterprise needs a project sponsor. It used to be that the duties of many project sponsors seemed to begin and end with securing financial resources for the project. Beyond that point, the role would often become a largely titular or ceremonial one, typically involving irregular attendance at meetings of the project steering committee that might meet infrequently, unless of course the project experienced some sort of crisis - occasionally leading to the steering committee meeting far too frequently for its own good, with plenty of opportunities for recriminations and "blamestorming" (i.e. a session in which everyone contributes to the finger-pointing).

This is an admittedly critical picture of the process, but I imagine many people in organizations are familiar, directly, indirectly or anecdotally with experiences not too dissimilar to the description. While I wouldn’t characterize it as the rule, neither was it the exception.

However, rather than simply dissect what has gone awry in such situations; I believe it would be more constructive to talk about the project sponsor role from start to finish. This should have relevance to a fairly broad audience, from project managers wanting to help their sponsors to CEOs who recognize that effective sponsorship by business executives and managers is a key ingredient to maximizing the return on technology projects.

Because this is a sizable topic, I will be breaking the discussion into a handful of segments. I’m going to start with some quick thoughts on sponsor selection. In future segments, I expect to cover the responsibilities of the sponsor, tips on fulfilling and evaluating the role of the sponsor, and what to do in cases of sponsor nonfeasance (or less-commonly malfeasance). Please feel free to email suggestions for particular areas of the topic you would like to see addressed.

Sponsorship as Governance

When thinking about the role of the project sponsor, think governance, not management, chairman rather than CEO (although about half of the public firms in America conflate the Chairman/CEO role, it is not a governance best practice there, either). There are three main areas of responsibility for a project sponsor which I will enumerate presently and on which I will elaborate at a later date:

• Represent the project’s interests within the broader business.
• Represent the business’ interests (strategic and financial) within the context of the project.
• Oversee the (hopefully successful) execution of the project.

Sponsor Selection

Now that we’ve got a thumbnail sketch of the sponsor’s responsibility, let’s turn to a discussion of choosing a project sponsor. The sponsor may be readily apparent during the initial planning of the project, often having championed the need for the project from the beginning. Common examples of this would include a Sales and Marketing VP driving a Sales Force Automation (SFA) initiative or a CFO pushing new accounting systems to more rapidly close the books or better support new compliance requirements.

The following ideas about sponsor selection are directed at choosing an initial project sponsor. I will save for a later time the discussion of the different needs for the individual when a project sponsor must be replaced. Note that the comments below are meant as general thoughts (and to some may represent a blinding glimpse of the obvious); these guidelines are in no way definitive, but they should provide a helpful point of departure for thinking about the role.

Avoid making the CIO the sponsor

Few major technology projects in the corporate world should be sponsored by the CIO. The reason is a fairly simple one: in doing this a company cuts in half the active senior management oversight of the project. In the same way that it is not a best practice in corporate governance to have a single individual share the CEO and Chairman roles, having a CIO as a project sponsor conflates the activities of management and governance. I said there were exceptions to this rule. What are they?

When the project is largely a technology infrastructure project, it may be that the CIO could be the best sponsor of the project. I would typically recommend looking to the CFO or COO when possible, as many such projects are pursued to improve operational efficiency or reduce ongoing operating costs, thus giving one of those individuals a role in it. However, there are some aspects of the infrastructure which are simply a fact of life within IT - not dissimilar from the need to periodically repave a road.

Enterprise-wide systems in which no other top-3 C-level (CEO, CFO or COO) executive can take on the sponsorship. It is not uncommon to see an ERP upgrade sponsored by the CIO for this reason. Because of the sheer scale of the project, sponsorship probably cannot fall to the CEO due to time constraints. At the same time, because such initiatives usually cut across so many business functions and possibly parochial business interests, the project should be in the hands of an individual who has accountability across the business - often this means the CIO.

Choose the highest rank you can...

Ideally the project sponsor will be the highest-ranking manager in the organization who is materially impacted by the system or initiative. The advantages to a higher-ranked sponsor are obvious in the context of securing resources and participation by demonstrating the importance the organization assigns to the project.

...but enthusiasm trumps rank.

However, if the person is not enthusiastic enough about the project it can have the opposite impact. A disengaged sponsor often sends the message to the team and the organization that the project really isn’t that important. Because of this, a project would be better-served by a slightly lower-ranked but more enthusiastic sponsor. For example, a director who is significantly impacted by the system would likely be a better sponsor than their VP-level manager, who, while affected, may not feel it is of sufficient significance in the context of the position’s broader responsibilities. In this case, the project will ultimately secure more executive support because the director will make it important to the veep. I think all of us as managers know that a direct report who really wants something you can provide - budgets, resources, etc. - can be very tenacious about securing it.

Technical expertise is not critical to the role...

For most business systems projects, there is little inherent value in the sponsor having significant technical expertise. Because the role is one of governance, not management, the discussions and decisions in which the sponsor is involved should not be deeply technical. In fact, there can be legitimate project risks of having a project sponsor who is (or even worse, fancies themselves to be) very technically astute:

• A tendency to get down in the weeds of the technology decisions for the project. For example, the project sponsor most likely shouldn’t be weighing in on a discussion of which middleware product the project will use - unless there is broader business impact (leveraged licensing).
• A reduction in their objectivity as a project fiduciary. They may become too enamored of the project as a technical initiative rather than a business initiative.
• Overconfidence in their ability to assess the state of the project risks and a possible unwillingness to ask questions that would better allow them to assess the state of the project.

...but project experience and an open and analytical mind is invaluable.

Although technical expertise per se may not contribute to the sponsor’s function, a sort of "systems thinking" mindset is essential to understand the mechanics of the project, the system and its role in the business. This understanding is critical for making effective and informed decisions that will be brought to the sponsor. A lack of systems-oriented thinking by the sponsor will very likely result in a tale of woe for the senior project team, if not for the entire project.

The reason should be fairly obvious when one considers it: to borrow a phrase, it can become a "Mars/Venus" challenge for communication between the project team and the project sponsor. The chief problem is that the communication gap can significantly erode the trust between the sponsor and the project management or at a minimum make for less-than-fluid communication. Beyond this, a lack of analytical thinking can prevent the sponsor from making the best decisions for the organization when balancing among business needs and the technical and financial realities of the project as well as assessing and evaluating project risk within project operation.

The parallel in corporate governance would be observing that while the Chairman of an organization need not be expert in finance or accounting, it is all but imperative that the individual be fairly conversant, if not fluent, in those areas. Such familiarity is essential to understanding the state of the business and the implications of certain choices the board must make. By the same token, a sponsor should understand some of the key aspects of project management and the ways in which the system will impact the organization.

Personal Chemistry with the Project Manager is Valuable

In the general case a highly-ranked and enthusiastic non-techie systems thinker will tend to be the best individual to sponsor a project. However, among the most important factors to the success of the project (and by implication the sponsor role) is a good working relationship between the project management team and the sponsor. If the project manager and the sponsor do not work well together the PM will be more likely to minimize contact with the sponsor rather than reaching out when the sponsor’s help might benefit the project. In extreme cases it is even possible that the relationship could devolve into the two individuals working at cross-purposes. This will almost inevitably result in either the sponsor or PM leaving the project, or the project simply being killed.

Choose a Sponsor that Reduces key Project Risks

While the items above represent general guidelines, it is important to consider the risks involved in a project and attempting to identify a sponsor who can contribute to mitigating those risks. For example, if user adoption or change management issues are a significant concern, there is real value to having an engaged sponsor who has the charisma or respect within the user constituencies. If there are a large number of vendors involved in the project, a sponsor with strong vendor management, facilitation and negotiation skills would likely contribute to the project.

The bottom line is that the project sponsor should be capable of, and committed to, contributing to the successful delivery of a project judged from the vantage point of the business management.

When I next return to the topic of project sponsorship, I will cover the responsibilities of a project sponsor.

Comments

[Mitch Betts]

Computerworld -- especially columnist Bart Perkins -- has been covering the importance of the executive sponsor for some time now. I've compiled links to the best articles here:
http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/986
And don't miss the article on how to dump a really bad sponsor. :-)
Best wishes!

[jhgcf]

http://www.journalhome.com/web132/ 粉碎设备
http://www.skaffe.com/weblog/web117/ 发电机
http://www.blog.de/web119 环保设备

[MUGUMYA DAVIS]

Need to share my knowledge with you

[MUGUMYA DAVIS]

Need to share my knowledge with you

[pps]

more excellent material on programme and project sponsoring at http://www.2omega.co.uk

[iwh]

i'm with pps

what's the point otherwise?

http://www.2omega.co.uk