Governance and support in the sponsorship of projects and programs

2008 � Project Management Journal � DOI: 10.1002/pmj S43

PA

PE

RS

INTRODUCTION �

Several factors have combinedto draw attention to the impor-tance of sponsorship of proj-ects and programs. One factor

is that after several decades ofattempting to improve success rates ofprojects by focusing on project-basedmanagement and the project manage-ment competence of practitioners,convincing evidence demonstrates that success or failure of projects isnot entirely within the control of theproject manager and project team.Contextual issues are crucial in influ-encing the progress and outcomes ofprojects, and a key theme that hasemerged is the importance of top man-agement support (Baker, Murphy, &Fisher, 1988; Lechler, 1998; Lechler &Thomas, 2007; Zimmerer & Yasin, 1998).

Another factor that has drawnattention to the sponsorship role isincreased focus on corporate gover-nance, resulting from numerous high-profile corporate collapses, which hashighlighted the need for accountabil-ity, transparency, and the ability toimplement strategy. Projects can beseen as temporary organizations,established within the framework ofthe permanent organization (Lundin& Söderholm, 1995; Sahlin-Andersson& Söderholm, 2002; Turner & Müller,2003). The permanent organization isrequired to conform to corporate gov-ernance requirements such as thoseestablished by the Sarbanes-OxleyAct, 2002 (USA) and similar regulatoryinstruments, of which over 35 have

Governance and Support in theSponsoring of Projects and ProgramsLynn Crawford, ESC Lille, France, and Bond University, Sydney, AustraliaTerry Cooke-Davies, Human Systems International Limited, Folkstone, United KingdomBrian Hobbs, University of Quebec at Montreal, Montreal, CanadaLes Labuschagne, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South AfricaKaye Remington, University of Technology, Sydney, AustraliaPing Chen, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

ABSTRACT �

Several factors have combined to draw attention tothe importance of sponsoring projects and programs.One factor is that after several decades of attemptingto improve success rates of projects by focusing onproject-based management and the project manage-ment competence of practitioners, convincingevidence demonstrates that success or failure ofprojects is not entirely within the control of the proj-ect manager and project team. Contextual issues arecrucial in influencing the progress and outcomes ofprojects, and a key theme that has emerged is theimportance of top management support. Another fac-tor that has drawn attention to the sponsorship roleis increased focus on corporate governance resultingfrom numerous high-profile corporate collapses,which have highlighted the need for accountability,transparency, and the ability to implement strategy.The sponsorship role provides the critical linkbetween corporate and project governance and isimportant in ensuring that governance requirementsare met and that support is provided to projects andprograms. This article reports on research designedto address both formal and informal aspects of thesponsorship role and to provide guidance to organi-zations and professional organizations by definingthe role and responsibilities of the sponsor withincorporate and project governance frameworks andidentifying the characteristics of effective perform-ance of the sponsor role. First, the role of sponsor-ship in the governance context is introduced; this isfollowed by a review of the literature relating to thesponsorship role, including its treatment in projectand general management literature and in standards.The research methodology was specifically designedto take a holistic view of the sponsorship role, byexamining the role in its project/program and organi-zational context and ensuring inclusion of views and

experiences of sponsors as well as those of projectmanagers, team members, and other stakeholders. Aqualitative approach was adopted, focusing on asmall number of case-study organizations and proj-ects/programs enabling researchers to gain a richunderstanding of the environment in which the roleof the sponsor is realized. Over 108 interviews relat-ing to 36 projects/programs in nine organizationsfrom five geographic regions (Australia, China,Europe, North America, and South Africa) wererecorded, transcribed, and then coded by the fiveresearchers involved in the study. A priori codesderived from five preliminary studies were used forprimary coding of the data. As the transcripts werecoded, the researchers reviewed the data for emer-gent themes that might suggest additional codes.Analysis of the literature and the extensive qualita-tive data led to the development of a conceptualmodel for making sense of the sponsor’s role. Thismodel reflects the differing perspectives that mayexist at the interface of the act of governing the proj-ect, which requires that the project be looked at fromthe perspective of the parent organization (gover-nance), and the act of providing top managementsupport, which requires looking at the parent organi-zation from the perspective of the project (support).Under differing circumstances, the sponsor mayneed to emphasize the provision of governance, orsupport, or both. Utilizing this conceptual model, sec-ondary codes were created reflecting quotations per-taining to governance, support, and behaviors ofsponsors. Review of quotations provided a rich illus-tration of the governance and support aspects of thesponsorship role and gave substance to effectivebehaviors, which led to the discovery of useful oppor-tunities for connection with mainstream generalmanagement literature to further enhance under-standing. The conceptual model has significantpotential to provide organizations and sponsors withguidance in understanding and defining the effectivecontextual conduct of the sponsorship role.

KEYWORDS: sponsor; project management;program management; governance

Project Management Journal, Vol. 39,

Supplement, S43–S55

© 2008 by the Project Management Institute

Published online in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com)

DOI: 10.1002/pmj.20059

S44 2008 � Project Management Journal � DOI: 10.1002/pmj

Governance and Support in the Sponsoring of Projects and ProgramsP

AP

ER

S

been issued in Organisation forEconomic Co-operation and Develop-ment (OECD) countries since therelease of the OECD “Principles ofCorporate Governance” in 1999 (Gregory& Simmelkjaer, 2002). It is the responsi-bility of directors to ensure accounta-bility and transparency throughout allof their operations and to provide astructure through which the objectivesof the company are set, and the meansof attaining those objectives and moni-toring performance are determined(OECD, 2004). Visibility and controlmust be maintained throughout allactivities of both the permanent organ-ization or ongoing operations and thetemporary organization(s) or projectsand programs undertaken. While cor-porate governance must be consistentacross the permanent organization,governance of projects and programsmay vary within that framework. Forinstance, one project of an organizationmay be undertaken as a strategicalliance with another organization, orunder a contract. In each case, the con-tract will specify the specific gover-nance arrangements for that project(Hazard & Crawford, 2004). In satisfyingcorporate governance requirements,management must ensure coordinationbetween governance of the permanentand temporary organizations. Thesponsorship role constitutes this pointof intersection. The sponsorship rolecan therefore be seen as important bothin terms of ensuring that governancerequirements are met and in providingsupport to projects and programs.

In designing the research reportedhere, the aims were to address bothformal and informal aspects of thesponsorship role and to provide guid-ance to organizations and professionalorganizations in:

• defining the role and responsibili-ties of the sponsor within corporateand project governance frameworksand

• identifying the characteristics of effec-tive performance of the sponsor role.

Following is a review of the litera-ture relating to the sponsorship roleincluding its treatment in both litera-ture and standards; an explanation ofthe research design and methodology;a review and analysis of results from theresearch and presentation; and discus-sion of a model to guide understand-ing, structuring, and conduct of thesponsorship role under differing con-textual circumstances.

Sponsorship in the LiteratureThe following review of the literaturefocuses specifically on the role of theproject sponsor in relation to projectgovernance. The literature reviewcommences with a review of the roleof the project sponsor as representedin the major international projectmanagement standards. This is fol-lowed by a review of the current stateof knowledge derived from the projectmanagement practice literature andresearch findings both from the projectmanagement academic literature andthe general management literature.

Representation in InternationalProject Management StandardsAlthough we recognize that a number ofnational and organizational standardsare in use, this review confines its exam-ination to three generally accessiblesources of project management stan-dards, all of which are used internation-ally. The standards reviewed in this survey are those developed by theProject Management Institute (PMI), the Association for Project Management(APM), and the Office of GovernmentCommerce (OGC), United Kingdom.

An examination of the PMI stan-dards found that, individually andcollectively, the four standards, A Guideto the Project Management Body ofKnowledge (PMBOK® Guide)–ThirdEdition (Project Management Institute(PMI), 2004), OPM3® (PMI, 2003), TheStandard for Program Management(PMI, 2006a), and The Standard forPortfolio Management (PMI, 2006b) donot provide a clear and consistent

treatment of sponsorship as a topic.However, project sponsorship is men-tioned several times throughout thedocuments.

The PMBOK® Guide is largely writtenfrom the perspective of the project man-ager and the project team managing asingle project. Project governance andthe sponsor role are not its primary focus.The sponsor is defined as “the person orgroup that provided financial resources. . .”(Section 2.2 Project Stakeholders andglossary). However, there are a number ofother references to the project sponsorrole, which give an overview of this role inthe context of the management of a sin-gle project, which is the stated scope ofthis standard. References to the projectsponsor’s role in this standard include thefollowing responsibilities: issuing theproject charter (Section 4.1); authority inchange control (Section 4.6); formalacceptance of deliverables (Section 4.7);dictating major milestones (Section 6.5);QA support (Section 8.2); clarify fundingand scope for the project team and influ-encing others (Chapter 9 Introduction);and communicating with the projectmanager (Chapter 10).

OPM3® addresses organizationalproject management but makes veryfew specific references to the projectsponsor role. No specific reference tothis role was found in the KnowledgeFoundation; however, some referenceswere found within Appendix I, Programand Portfolio Management ProcessModels. These were consistent withthose found in the PMBOK® Guide. TheOPM3® self-evaluation questionnairecontains one question that specificallyaddresses the project sponsor role, “Arethe sponsor and other stakeholder(s)involved in setting a direction for theproject that is in the interest of all stake-holders?” (Question #1). This questionis linked to four best practices: deter-mining project scope; establishingstrong sponsorship; considering stake-holder interests; and selecting projectsbased on organization’s best interests.

No section of The Standard forProgram Management is devoted


specifically to the sponsor role. Thedefinition given above from thePMBOK® Guide is reproduced, but whatcould be considered to be several com-plementary definitions of the programsponsor are also presented. Section 17.2describes the program sponsor role as:“The individual or group who champi-ons the program initiative, and isresponsible for providing projectresources and often ultimately for deliv-ering the benefits.” This section alsodefines the “program governance board”as “the group responsible for ensuringthat program goals are achieved andproviding support for addressing pro-gram risks and issues.” In section 2.3.1 (p. 21), the “executive sponsor” in a list ofroles in program governance is followedby the statement, “Responsible for creat-ing an environment that will ensure pro-gram success.” Note that the documentalternates between the terms “programsponsor” and “executive sponsor.”

The Standard for Portfolio Manage-ment seems to take project sponsorshipas a given, with neither a definition norany substantial discussion. The mostimportant reference to the projectsponsor is found in the section onstakeholder roles and responsibilities(section 2.2.4, Sponsors, p. 17). Otherbrief references to the sponsor role aremade in several sections throughoutthe document (section 2.2.5; section1.6; section 1.10; pp. 27, 37, and 59.)

“Directing Change: A Guide toGovernance of Project Management”(APM, 2004) specifically identifies theproject sponsorship role as one of fourmain components of the governance ofproject management and lack of clearsenior management ownership andleadership as one of seven commoncauses of program and project failure.Project sponsorship is described as theeffective link between the organiza-tion’s senior executive body and themanagement of the project with deci-sion making, directing, and representa-tional accountabilities.

Other standards in general use, suchas PRINCE2 (OGC, 2005), Managing

Successful Programmes (OGC, 2007a),and Portfolio, Programme, and ProjectManagement Maturity Model (P3M3)(OGC, 2007b), do address the role of thesponsor under various nomenclaturesby prescribing specific functions withinthe project governance hierarchy.

PRINCE2 distributes the responsi-bility for project sponsorship over threeroles, which are constituted as the proj-ect board. The project board comprisesthe customer or executive, a senior representative of the user, the senioruser, and someone representing thesupplier or providing specialist input,the senior supplier. The chairperson of the project board represents the cus-tomer and owns the business case (p. 311). The project board is responsi-ble for providing the project managerwith the necessary decisions for theproject to proceed and to help the proj-ect manager and team overcome anyobstacles.

Managing Successful Programmesclearly defines a governance structure.Sponsorship rests with a group knownas the Sponsoring Group, which con-tains the investment decision makersand includes the senior responsibleowner (SRO). It may also be known asthe program board and comprises sen-ior-level sponsors of the program whoprovide investment decisions and top-level endorsement of the rationale andobjectives for the program. There isalso some reference to role behavior,and it is recommended that the mem-bers of the SRO must lead by exampleand demonstrate commitment anddirect involvement. In this model, theSRO, otherwise referred to as programdirector, is ultimately accountable forthe success of the program.

Portfolio, Programme and ProjectManagement Maturity Model (P3M3) is areference guide for structured best prac-tice. It breaks down the broad disciplinesof portfolio, program, and project man-agement into a hierarchy of key processareas (KPAs). It does not have a specificKPA called “Governance,” but the 2.2Programme Organisation KPA states that

“the Sponsoring Group for each programshould ensure that the governancearrangements are appropriate.”

Representation in the ProjectManagement LiteratureAwareness about the importance of therole played by the sponsor, or represen-tative of the organization, has beensteadily gaining momentum.Originally, the literature simply recog-nized the importance of the role itself(Baker et al., 1988; Pinto & Slevin, 1988).Research projects followed, aimed atexploring the nature of the role. In anearly critical study of project manage-ment processes, Kerzner (1989) obser-ved that during the evolutionary stagesof a project executive managers may bereluctant to provide visible ongoingsupport until they are convinced thatthe system will work. Other researchprojects followed (Cooke-Davies, 2005;Crawford & Brett, 2001; Crawford &Cooke-Davies, 2005; Guldentops, 2004;Hall, Holt, & Purchase, 2003; Helm &Remington, 2005a, 2005b; Kloppenborg,Tesch, Manolis, & Heitkamp, 2006;Weaver, 2005; Whitten, 2002). Evidencefrom the academic literature has alsobeen supported by the practice litera-ture (Ingram, 1994; Kay, 1997;Melymuka, 2004a, 2004b; Perkins, 2005;Stevens, 1998). Nevertheless, with fewexceptions (Crawford & Brett, 2001;Hall et al., 2003; Helm & Remington,2005a, 2005b; Kloppenborg et al., 2006),very little research has examined thesponsor role in any depth.

Initial understanding of the role ofthe project executive sponsor as theperson or group responsible forapproving finance has gradually beenexpanded to include many other keyfunctions that appear to be directlyrelated to project success (Jiang, Klein, &Balloun, 1996; Lechler, 1998; Zimmerer& Yasin, 1998). Several authors empha-size the necessity for high-level sponsorinvolvement and commitment to theproject to ensure the availability of resources needed and the appropri-ate level of attention from senior



AP

ER

S

management (Cooke-Davies, 2002;Remington & Pollack, 2002).Benjaminsen (2000) examines this ideain the context of the information tech-nology (IT) industry, asserting that thepresence of an executive sponsor isfundamental to achieving a successfulproject. Other writers (Jeffries &Robertson, 1999; Melymuka, 2004a;Paton, 1997; Slater, 1998) support thisbased on reports from practitioners,and M. Smith (2003) goes so far as toargue that project success is directlyrelated to the seniority of the sponsorwithin the organization. The need foreffective communication, and the criti-cality of balancing social and procedur-al aspects of communication withinorganizations (KPMG, 1997; Miller &Hobbs, 2002), is highlighted by severalstudies, such as Kerzner (1994). Müller(2003) also stresses the sponsor’s roleas critic.

A case study in the IT industry(Müller & Turner, 2002) emphasizes theimportance of “softer” skills for projectsponsorship, particularly high-levelcommunication skills, a point supportedby other writers (Black, 2004; Hall et al., 2003; Hartman & Ashrafi, 2002;Kapur, 1999;). These authors providesome degree of insight into the role ofthe executive sponsor across variousdisciplines. Turner and Keegan (2001),in describing governance mechanismsadopted by project-based organiza-tions, identify two essentially separatebut complementary roles that theyentitle steward and broker. There issome parity between the role of “bro-ker” and that of project sponsor, in thatthe broker takes an entrepreneurial roleassociated with establishing and man-aging customer interfaces.

Crawford and Brett (2001), drawingon a review of the literature, a survey,and nine case studies, identify the con-textual determinants of the role of theproject sponsor in relationship to the nature of the organization and theproject type, and identify potentialaspects of the role from the perspectiveof project managers. Topping the list

was responsibility for budget alloca-tion, a traditional perception of therole; however, in second place waspolitical support for the project.Challenges to effective sponsorshipidentified in this study included recog-nition and definition of the sponsorrole, provision of guidance and trainingfor executive sponsors, acceptance ofthe role and related responsibility bythe executive sponsor, and the effect ofchanges of executive sponsor through-out the life of the project. These find-ings are supported by Whitten (2002).

In the public sector, the projectsponsor is described as the personresponsible for representing the publicclient who acts as day-to-day managerof the client’s interests within theproject. Analysis of interviews withsponsors by Hall et al. (2003) revealedthe complexity of the sponsor’s role.Sponsors are simultaneously involvedin juggling multiple needs of stakehold-ers and user groups, departmental pro-cedures, and government edicts whiledealing with a legacy of mistrust andadversarial contracts. The main conclu-sion derived from this research was theimportance of the “softer” cultural andattitudinal issues and the need forproject sponsors to develop long-termrelationships with key stakeholdersand acquire significant experience intheir role.

Helm and Remington (2005a,2005b) undertook an analysis of theroles and responsibilities of the projectsponsor in projects from a range ofindustry sectors that had been identi-fied by project owners as both complexand high-risk. Project managers andsponsors with experience in managingthese kinds of projects were asked todefine sponsorship characteristics thatcontributed to project success underthese conditions. The most frequentlycited characteristics required were:appropriate seniority and power in theorganization; political knowledge andsavvy; ability/willingness to make proj-ect/organization connections; courage/willingness to battle with others on

behalf of the project; ability to motivatethe team and provide ad hoc support tothe team; willingness to partner withthe project team and project manager;excellent communication skills; person-al compatibility with other key players;and ability/willingness to challenge theproject and provide objectivity.

Nevertheless, as Procaccino, Verner,Darter, and Amadio (2005) illustrate, insome sectors executive sponsors arenot routinely identified for all projects,nor do sponsors remain engaged forthe whole project. In some respects,this cavalier approach to the role of theproject sponsor is reflected by Englundand Bucero (2006), who report that 70%of sponsors interviewed in the IT sectordid not possess accurate project statusdata, and 50% of them had never visit-ed the customer site.

In a recent study, Kloppenborg et al.(2006) focused their attention on theinitiating stage. They built upon earlierwork that identified risk factors(Kloppenborg, Shriberg, & Venkatraman,2003; Kloppenborg & Tesch, 2004) and,with the help of experienced projectmanagers, linked project risk factorsand success outcome measures withsponsorship behaviors. They found asignificant correlation between each ofsix behavior factors (establishing com-munications and commitment, defin-ing and aligning the project, definingperformance/success, mentoring theproject manager, prioritizing andselecting, and establishing projectteams) with at least one of the threesuccess outcome measures (meetingagreed requirements, customer’s per-ception of success and the firm’s future,such as market share).

Representation in the GeneralManagement LiteraturesAn argument for the criticality of thesponsorship role has also been gather-ing momentum in the general manage-ment academic literatures, particularlyin relation to research and developmentprojects, interorganizational venturesand organizational redevelopment and


change projects (see, for example,Barrow, 1990; Borys & Jemison, 1989;Cummings, 1991; Fireworker & Zirkel,1990; Grover, 1993; Martin, Brown,DeHayes, Hoffer, & Perkins, 1999;Mehrotra, 2005; Puckett & Kaczmarski,1990; Ryckman, 1987; J. J. Smith,McKeon, Hoy, Boysen, & Shechter,1984). As early as 1988, Burbridge andFriedman (1988) argued that role spec-ification of the user and sponsor in thedevelopment and implementation ofmanagement information systems hadnot been sufficiently developed.Burbridge and Friedman’s work is ofinterest because it is an early examplefrom the literature recognizing the roleof the sponsor as extending beyond tra-ditional financial responsibilities.

McKenney, Copeland, and Mason(1995), in their book focusing on busi-ness evolution and change throughinformation technology, identify threeroles that they label the senior executivesponsor, the technological maestro, andthe gifted technologist or technicalteam. Chakravarthy and Lorange (2007)also acknowledge the critical role of theexecutive sponsor, particularly withrespect to business change and renewal.In a comprehensive case study of IT-mediated interorganizational change,Volkoff, Chan, and Newson (1999) con-cluded that the absence of active seniorexecutive sponsors, either internal orexternal, was a decided hindrance.Based on an analysis of interorganiza-tional projects involving local govern-ment and external agencies, Cairns,Wright, Van der Heijden, Bradfield, andBurt (2006) also propose the need forearly critical consideration of the influ-encing role of the project sponsor.

Conclusion From the LiteratureReviewIt is apparent that recognition of theimportance of the sponsorship role inresearch literature is increasing in boththe project management and generalmanagement literature. Nevertheless,until very recently, research and prac-tice literature has confined itself to

acknowledgment of the importance ofthe role in relation to other key roles.There is general consensus about theimportance of the role; however, withthe exception of the few key studies dis-cussed above, the research literaturereveals that the role is largely unex-plored.

MethodologyEmpirical research concerning thesponsorship role has tended to relyheavily upon the opinions of projectmanagers. There is a sound practicalreason for this. Sponsors are notorious-ly difficult to access, either for researchor for any form of training and develop-ment for the role. They usually claimthat they, as members, almost by defi-nition, of senior management in thepermanent organization, are too busyto commit time to discussion or devel-opment of their competence in a spon-sorship role. They are only marginallymembers of the project managementcommunity and see little value in con-tribution to research or developingskills that they perceive to be directlyproject-related.

The research reported here wasspecifically designed to take a holisticview of the sponsorship role, by exam-ining the role in its project/programand organizational context and ensur-ing inclusion of views and experiencesof sponsors as well as those of projectmanagers, team members, and otherstakeholders. To do this, a qualitativeapproach was adopted, focusing on asmall number of case-study organiza-tions and a moderate number of proj-ects/programs, enabling researchers togain a rich understanding of the envi-ronment in which the role of the spon-sor is realized.

The research was conducted by ageographically distributed team ofresearchers in two phases. The firstphase comprised the conduct andanalysis of results from five separateresearch studies, undertaken by mem-bers of the research team utilizing different research methodologies

(Cooke-Davies, Crawford, Hobbs,Labuschagne, & Remington, 2006),aimed at identifying:• The essential attributes contributing

to effective project sponsorship;• The influence of executive sponsor-

ship on project success;• The competencies required of project

sponsors;• The sponsorship role in the context of

corporate, program, and project gov-ernance requirements; and

• A model of factors contributing toeffective performance of the sponsor-ship role.

The results of these independentstudies, although utilizing differentmethodologies and perspectives,demonstrated remarkable consistencyand provided a sound platform forPhase Two of the research.

The nature of Phase Two of theresearch, which is the focus of this arti-cle, was both confirmatory in that datawas coded using a priori codes derivedfrom the five studies conducted inPhase One, and exploratory in thattranscripts were analyzed to identifyemergent themes. A qualitative appro-ach was considered most appropriateto developing a rich and well-groundedunderstanding of the sponsorship role.Selection of organizations as the pri-mary focus for data collection enabledthe sponsorship role to be examinedagainst a good understanding of con-text. Interviews with sponsors and keyteam members on nominated proj-ects/programs allowed for inclusion ofa range of perspectives on the role.

Phase Two involved nine organiza-tions and 36 projects/programs acrossfive geographic regions: Australia,China, Europe, North America, andSouth Africa. Organizations in eachregion were selected with a view toexamination of programs/projectsdealing with IT-enabled change. Eachorganization was asked to nominatefour projects or programs, two of whichwould ideally be considered by theorganization as successful and two

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228148889_Sponsoring_Renewal?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a9d8ca062d7ed81968ff477aea3f02b0-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3ODI2NTQ2O0FTOjEwMjc2MDA3ODkwNTM0N0AxNDAxNTExMzIwNTMw



AP

ER

S

considered less successful. Informationwas gathered at the organizational level concerning governance andmanagement of projects, and theninterviews were conducted with spon-sors, program/project managers, andother project participants concerningthe evolution of the particular programor project, with particular emphasis onthe role of the sponsor. Some of the 108interviews related to more than oneproject, for example, where a sponsorwas responsible for more than one ofthe projects/programs under examina-tion. Tables 1 and 2 provide a summaryof data sources.

Interviews were recorded, tran-scribed, and then coded in ATLAS.ti 5.0using codes derived from Phase One ofthe research. As transcripts were coded,researchers reviewed the data for emer-gent themes that might suggest addi-tional codes. Ultimately it was foundthat the a priori codes were sufficient tocapture the themes evident in the dataconcerning the sponsorship role. Morerelevant was the creation of secondarycodes or code families by grouping pri-mary or a priori codes into broaderthemes emerging from the data.

Most of the units of investigationincluded in the study were considered to be projects rather than programs (Table3). The majority of projects/programswere in implementation or closeout phaseat the time of the interview; a small num-ber had recently been completed, and onewas an ongoing program (Table 4).

Participating organizations wereasked to nominate two successful andtwo less successful projects or pro-grams for examination. Table 5 indi-cates that this was largely achieved, as16 of the projects/programs examinedwere considered successful and 20projects/programs ranged from mod-erately successful to challenged.

The following section provides ananalysis of results of the research and amodel for assisting in contextualunderstanding of the requirements ofthe sponsorship role.

A Conceptual Model for MakingSense of the Sponsor’s RoleStanding as he or she does with onefoot in the permanent organization andthe other foot in the temporary organi-zation (the program or project), thesponsor performs a pivotal role in bothinfluencing the success (or failure) ofthe project and in providing the perma-nent organization with a governancemechanism to oversee the temporary

Australia China Europe North America South America Totals

No. of Organizations 2 2 1 2 2 9

No. of Projects/Programs 8 8 4 8 8 36

No. of Interviews 25 29 17 22 15 108

Table 1: Summary of data sources.

Interviews Total

Sponsors 28

Program Managers 6

Project Managers 37

Team Members 28

Other 9

Total 108

Project 16 44

Very large project 5 14

Multiproject program 3 8

Strategic program 11 31

Operational program 1 3

Total 36 100

Table 3: Relative number of projects and programs.

Frequency Percent

Conception 1 3

Implementation 16 44

Closeout 15 42

Completed 3 8

Ongoing 1 3

Total 36 100

Table 4: Stage of project/program at time of interview.Table 2: Interview profile.

Frequency Percent


• the parent organization is failing toprovide the project team with deci-sions that are necessary to maintain-ing planned progress;

• the project manager and/or team isknown to be inexperienced or weak;and

• there are early signs of difficulty withthe project such as a possible shortfallin benefits realization.

It is possible to locate the particularperspective required of a sponsor on atwo-dimensional space, bounded bythe two independent perspectives of governance and support. Such a framework is illustrated in Figure 1.Interestingly, the need for each of thedistinctive emphases is expressed bysponsors, as well as by project and program managers and their teammembers. More will be made of thisframework when the final research ispublished, but for the purposes of thisarticle, it will be used as a preliminary“lens” through which to examine the insights from the data on the 36projects.

Investigating the Research Datain the Light of the ProposedConceptual ModelThe Emphasis on GovernanceDiscussing the emphasis on governance,for example, sponsors commented onthe role as requiring “corporate gover-nance, and ensuring processes are followed.” The need is governed by the circumstances, since, for example,“at times an issue can get beyond aproject manager, simply because hedoesn’t have the clout to escalate. Thenit’s part of the sponsor’s role to step in. . . . As a sponsor you have to recog-nize when that’s happening. You needto keep an eye on what the issues are soyou know when you need to intervene.”Mechanisms for doing this differ, butone sponsor commented, “I have beensponsoring a number of reviews on theprogram to assure its value of delivery.”

There are particular points in thelife of a project or program where

Frequency Percent

Successful 16 45

Moderately successful 4 11

Turnaround 7 19

Challenged 9 25

Total 36 100

Table 5: Organizational assessment of the success of the project/program.

clearly present in the literature. It ispossible, however, to conceive of cir-cumstances in which either of theseperspectives might exist independentlyof the other.

For example, a sponsor may need toemphasize a governance perspective if:• the parent organization has a high

level of risk exposure to the conse-quences of failure of the project;

• the project is persistently performingpoorly against the parent organiza-tion’s expectations;

• the parent organization faces rapidlychanging market conditions;

• corporate governance requirements(such as Sarbanes-Oxley) have drawnattention to the particular project;

• there is suspected illegal, or noncom-pliant, behavior on the part of theproject team;

• the project is mission-critical or has ahigh level of exposure; and

• there is a need to realign the projectto new strategy or organizationalcontext.

Similarly, a sponsor may need toemphasize a support perspective if:• the parent organization is failing to

provide sufficient resources to theproject;

• some parts of the parent organizationare resisting the project’s implemen-tation;

• different stakeholders in the parentorganization are seeking to impose onthe project team conflicting defini-tions of its objectives or scope, or toimpose untenable constraints;

organization. The diversity of tasksinvolved in these roles is matched onlyby the variety of conceptual lensesthrough which performance of thetasks can be examined.

In seeking to make sense of notonly the different discourses repre-sented in the literature to date, butalso the breadth and richness ofmaterial gathered in more than 100hours of interviews for the particularresearch described in this article, theresearchers have found it necessary todevelop a coherent conceptual frame-work through which to examine themultiplicity of individual experiencesdescribed by the interviewees. Theframework must be robust enough toencompass different kinds of projectsundertaken in different industries, dif-ferent organizational structures, anddifferent philosophies of manage-ment.

Whenever an interface exists, dif-ferent perspectives may be obtained bylooking through it from opposingdirections. In this case, the act of gov-erning the project requires that theproject be looked at from the perspec-tive of the parent organization (gover-nance), and the act of providing topmanagement support requires lookingat the parent organization from theperspective of the project (support). Inthe literature, the necessity for each ofthese is stressed, but the two differingperspectives are not distinguished inany structured manner. The sponsormay have to provide the one, or mayhave to provide the other, but both are



AP

ER

S

the emphasis on governance is particu-larly high. As one sponsor explained,“Sponsoring the investment proposalsgoing forward, making sure they gotsigned off, they’re areas I was involvedin. And whenever I travel across ourmanufacturing sites, I take a very keeninterest to see how the program is actu-ally working or what the issues are withit.” As a result of this emphasis, “If youlook at the program per se in its ownright, you would have no doubt that weare addressing the right issues and theright components, and that it mustdeliver the benefits.”

Governance is not simply a matter ofpronouncing judgment on the merits of proposals put forward by the projectteam. The parent organization canexpect the sponsor to provide expertisefrom a business perspective to ensurethat the proposed project or program isthe one that it requires. Sponsors talk of

“owning [the project] from idea toimplementation and then rightthrough to the point of realizing thebusiness benefits.” This can require aparticular emphasis when initiallyscoping the project and developing itsstrategy. Sponsors acknowledge this interms such as “I see the role of projectsponsor as someone who has to repre-sent the business and its requirementson a project.”

When matters go relatively smoothly,this emphasis is one that the sponsorbrings to regular meetings with theproject manager and core project team.The sponsor and project managertogether are able to ensure that theinterests of the parent organization areaccommodated by the project. Whenthat doesn’t happen, however, the par-ent organization has to move to protectits own interests through such drasticaction as calling for exceptional

reviews, as a consequence of which theproject might be redefined, the projectmanager replaced, or both. As onesponsor described such an incident,“That took us about three months toreprioritize the project, repopulate itwith different staff, with a new projectmanager, and then to rebudget andreally understand what the budgetwas.”

But sponsors are not alone inacknowledging the need for an empha-sis on governance when circumstancesdictate. Astute project managers recog-nize the unique value that a competentsponsor can add. “A sponsor is goodbecause they can . . . ask really good,pertinent questions about key areasaround, ‘Are we really going to get thebenefits? I’m feeling a bit uneasy aboutthis sort of thing.’” They are also awareof the political and cultural realitiesthat can so easily result in projects notdelivering value to the parent organiza-tion: “The sponsor needs to make surethat the business case is solid from abusiness point of view, that it’s notbeing run for political reasons, toincrease their span of control or impor-tance, or, ‘I’ve always wanted to haveone of these widgets so now I’m in aposition where I can order them tobuild one.’” In summary, as one projectmanager put it, “We look to the sponsorto provide the direction, based on theirbusiness acumen.”

The Emphasis on SupportEven when projects are clearly beingundertaken for the right reasons andmake strong commercial, strategic, and operational sense, parent organi-zations contain many powerful peoplewho do not always see their best inter-ests being served by supporting theproject.

It is this arena, and in particular inthe competition that almost alwaysexists for scarce resources, that projectmanagers look to sponsors for the kindof support that they need in order forthe project to succeed. As one projectmanager explained, “a sponsor has to

Low G, Low S Low G, High S

High G, Low S

Low

Nee

d f

or

go

vern

ance

High G, High S

High

Hig

h

Low

Need for support

Representing the interests of thetemporary organization

Rep

rese

ntin

g t

he in

tere

sts

of t

hep

erm

anen

t o

rgan

izat

ion

Figure 1: Conceptual framework for understanding the role of a project sponsor.


have the capability and the decision to influence others . . . in the sense ofmaking sure that commitment requiredfor resources and capabilities to imple-ment, etc., is strong enough to makethings actually happen. That’s not justin the early days of the program butalso to make sure that what we’re tryingto achieve is sustainable and it’s notjust something that disappears at theend of the project. So the project spon-sor carries that role not just now, butongoing for sustainability purposes.”

This practical influence and sup-port needs to work in relationshipswith stakeholders external to theorganization and throughout the par-ent organization: “They have to under-stand and work with me in my role, andto do that they have to be able to put ontheir company hat rather than theirbusiness area hat. . . . They have tocommit the time and energy of theirparts of the business that need to beinvolved in the project. They have to be able to get involved in difficult stake-holder management issues across otherparts of the business with similarly sen-ior colleagues.”

Just as project and program man-agers acknowledge the emphasis ongovernance, however, so do effectivesponsors acknowledge the need forsupport. Sponsors of projects adjudgedby their parent organizations to be suc-cessful reflect this in their views of thesponsor’s role: “You need to be able todefend the project at the higher levelswithin the company, especially whenthere are limited resources and thereare other projects competing for thoseresources. . . . The sponsor should be aguy that’s taken the project to heart,really understands the project, buysinto it, and gives all the support to theproject team on the ground that hecan.” One sponsor reported, “I decidedto take the more proactive approachwith the customer and said, ‘Look, hereare the things we recognize need to bedone. Let’s prioritize what you needand we’ll work on making it happen.”Another showed support in a different

way, “When we made big deadlines, wemade sure that we celebrated thosewith the team.”

There is a substantial amount ofevidence from the interviews that theemphasis on both governance and sup-port are recognized as being importantby both sponsors and project man-agers. The model developed and pre-sented here has been validated, duringworkshops with senior project/pro-gram managers and executives respon-sible for project/program managementin large corporations. The reaction hasbeen quite positive. The executives canrelate to the relatively simple model,while recognizing that it captures agreat deal of the complexity and vari-ability that they observe in the exerciseof this role in their organizations.

Relating Project Sponsor Rolesto Mainstream Management and Leadership LiteratureThe sponsor role conceptualized as apivotal role between the parent organi-zation and the project can be seen as anexample of leadership in a specificorganizational context. In fact, the con-ceptual framework identified throughthis research resembles a number of theories of leadership or manage-ment that were first introduced duringthe 1960s. Perhaps the most familiar ofthese is the managerial grid (Blake &Mouton, 1982) that described man-agers in terms of concern for peopleand concern for production. Accordingto the model, effective leaders andmanagers (the distinction between thetwo is far from clear in Blake andMouton’s work) have a high concern forboth people and production. For thisreason, the effective person is referredto as the “high-high leader.”

It would be wrong, however, toequate governance with concern forproduction or support with concern for people. The actual question of man-agement style is, as it were, a thirddimension to the grid (perhaps dealingwith effectiveness of interpersonal rela-tions) and applies equally to concerns

in the permanent organization as itdoes to concerns between the perma-nent organization and the project. Yukl(2005), moreover, reports that surveyresearch provides only limited supportfor the proposition that high-high lead-ers are universally more effective thanothers, but points out that researchbased on critical incidents and inter-views “strongly suggest that effectiveleaders guide and facilitate the work toaccomplish task objectives while at thesame time maintaining co-operativerelationships and teamwork” (p. 60).

What the current research suggestsis that effective sponsors are able to“guide and facilitate” (to borrow Yukl’swords) the work on behalf of either thepermanent organization or the project,while at the same time maintainingcooperative relationships with each ofthe organizations (permanent and tem-porary) that they are representing.

What It Takes to “Guide and Facilitate”Sponsors and project managers alikerecognize that some skills, traits, andcompetencies help sponsors to bemore effective in their roles, regardlessof the emphasis. As one sponsorremarked, “You need good communi-cation skills in terms of working withstakeholders and doing those presenta-tions and securing resources.”

Another attribute that is highly val-ued is commitment. “The most impor-tant factor for me is that the sponsor isactually passionate about getting theproject done, believes it will providebenefits, and will support that andchampion the project and defend it inthe appropriate forums. . . . Ownershipof the need and desire to do the work,and ensure it’s successful, but alsoownership of the business benefits ofthe project.”

Position in the organization is alsoimportant: “Seniority, a relationshipwith the stakeholders, and a relation-ship with the customer, the client, andknowledge of the project, why we’redoing this, what it involves.”



AP

ER

S

But in practical terms, perhaps themost visible attribute is availability:“[The sponsor] must be accessible. Itdoesn’t help if you have a sponsor whokind of reports to God and you neverget to see them because he doesn’t pro-vide the support function and the rolehe’s supposed to give you as the projectmanager. . . . We’ve had some that justcouldn’t or wouldn’t find the time tosponsor a project properly. So theirteams couldn’t get any of their time tomeet with them or make decisions.They wouldn’t attend steering meet-ings, things like that.”

ConclusionThe importance of the sponsor role isrecognized in the literature and in theinterviews, reflecting a general recog-nition of the importance of the role.There is, however, considerable vari-ability among the different representa-tions found in both the literature andin the organizations in which inter-views were conducted. The role isplayed out quite differently in differentorganizational settings, on differentprojects and programs, and by differ-ent people interacting with their con-texts. A general conceptual model thatcaptures this richness is needed. Ageneral model could replace the partialrepresentations reflecting only someaspects of the role or the role as it isplayed out in some contexts that cur-rently dominate much of the literatureand much of the organizational dis-course as observed during the inter-views. The model presented here is afirst attempt to provide such a generalconceptual model.

Project/program sponsorship is apractice that is specific to the field ofproject/program management. It is,however, an example of leadership,albeit in a specific organizational con-text. Interestingly, the literature on theproject/program sponsor makes almostno reference to the general literature onleadership. This may be a reflection ofthe dilemma faced by the field of proj-ect/program management—if it is to

exist as a field of endeavor, it needs todifferentiate itself from general man-agement. But at the same time, proj-ect/program management would bene-fit from a better use of the vast amountof material that exists in the field of gen-eral management. Furthermore, as thefield strives for recognition by those inthe field of general management it mustshow a better grasp of the content ofgeneral management and in the processshould better come to grips with thereality of project/management in gen-eral and its specific managerial roles inparticular. The sponsor role may be butone example of the potential improve-ments in understanding.

In much of the project manage-ment literature, the project/programsponsor role has, at least until recently,largely been taken for granted. Theincreased interest in this role is associ-ated, generally, with a shift from a focuson the individual project to more of afocus at the organizational level. It isalso associated more specifically with an increased emphasis on corpo-rate and project governance. As thetaken-for-granted is examined moreclosely, as it has been during thisresearch, the complexity and the vari-ability of the role become more evident.And as the complexity and the variabili-ty emerge from the observations andanalysis, the need for a synthesis thatcaptures the richness of the realitywhile rendering it manageable becomeevident. This is exactly what happenedduring the present research project. An overview of the process and theproduct has been presented here. But the journey is not yet over. Analysisof the data and work on the model continue. �

ReferencesAssociation for Project Management(APM). (2004). Directing change: Aguide to governance of project manage-ment. High Wycombe, UK: APM.

Baker, B. N., Murphy, D. C., & Fisher,D. (1988). Factors affecting projectsuccess. In D. I. Cleland & W. R. King

(Eds.), Project management handbook (2nd ed., pp. 902–919). New York: VanNostrand Reinhold.

Barrow, C. (1990). Implementing anexecutive information system: Sevensteps for success. Journal of InformationSystems Management, 7(2), 41–46.

Benjaminsen, H. H. (2000). 10 implementation lessons learned.Facilities Design & Management,19(12), 33.

Black, R. (2004). Solid risk manage-ment is not a luxury, but a necessity.Computing Canada, 30(3), 22.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1982).Theory and research for developing ascience of leadership. Journal of AppliedBehavioral Science, 18, 275–291.

Borys, B., & Jemison, D. B. (1989).Hybrid arrangements as strategicalliances: Theoretical issues in organi-zational combinations. Academy ofManagement Review, 14, 234–249.

Burbridge, J. J., Jr., & Friedman,W. H. (1988). The roles of user andsponsor in MIS projects. ProjectManagement Journal, 19(2), 71–76.

Cairns, G., Wright, G., Van der Heijden,K., Bradfield, R., & Burt, G. (2006).Enhancing foresight between multipleagencies: Issues in the use of scenariothinking to overcome fragmentation.Futures, 38(8), 1010–1019.

Chakravarthy, B., & Lorange, P. (2007).Sponsoring renewal. Business StrategyReview, 18(3), 39–45.

Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The “real” suc-cess factors on projects. InternationalJournal of Project Management, 20(3),185–190.

Cooke-Davies, T. J. (2005). The execu-tive sponsor—The hinge upon whichorganisational project managementmaturity turns. Presented at the PMIGlobal Congress EMEA, Edinburgh.

Cooke-Davies, T. J., Crawford, L. H.,Hobbs, J. B., Labuschagne, L., &Remington, K. (2006). Exploring therole of the executive sponsor.Presented at the PMI ResearchConference, Montreal.


Crawford, L. H., & Brett, C. (2001).Exploring the role of the project spon-sor. Presented at the PMI New ZealandAnnual Conference, Wellington, New Zealand.

Crawford, L. H., & Cooke-Davies, T. J.(2005). Project governance: The pivotalrole of the executive sponsor.Presented at PMI North America,Toronto.

Cummings, T. (1991). Innovationthrough alliances: Archimedes’ hall ofmirrors. European ManagementJournal, 9, 284–287.

Englund, R. L., & Bucero, A (2006).Project sponsorship: Achieving manage-ment commitment for project success.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fireworker, R. B., & Zirkel, W. (1990).Designing an EIS in a multidivisionalenvironment. Journal of SystemsManagement, 41(2), 25–31.

Gregory, H. J., & Simmelkjaer, R. T.(2002). Comparative study of corporategovernance codes relevant to theEuropean Union and its membersstates on behalf of the EuropeanCommission. New York: Weil, Gotshal &Manges, LLP.

Grover, V. (1993). An empiricallyderived model for the adoption ofcustomer-based interorganizationalsystems. Decision Sciences, 24,603–640.

Guldentops, E. (2004). Governinginformation technology throughCOBIT. In W. Van Grembergen (Ed.),Strategies for information technologygovernance (pp. 269–309). Hershey, PA:Idea Group Publishing.

Hall, M., Holt, R., & Purchase, D.(2003). Project sponsors under newpublic management: Lessons from thefrontline. International Journal ofProject Management, 21, 495–502.

Hartman, F., & Ashrafi, R. A. (2002).Project management in the informa-tion systems and information tech-nologies industries. ProjectManagement Journal, 33(3), 5–16.

Hazard, V., & Crawford, L. H. (2004).Defining project governance.

Presented at the ProMAC ResearchConference, Tokyo, Japan.

Helm, J. & Remington, K. (2005a).Adaptive habitus? Project managers’evaluation of the role of the executivesponsor in complex projects.Presented at the EURAM Conference,Munich.

Helm, J., & Remington, K. (2005b).Effective project sponsorship: The evaluation of the role of the execu-tive sponsor in complex infrastructureprojects by senior project managers.Project Management Journal, 36(3),51–61.

Ingram, T. (1994). Managingclient/server and open systems proj-ects: A 10 year study of 62 mission-critical projects. Project ManagementJournal, 25(2), 26–37.

Jeffries, S., & Robertson, S. (1999). Thebest laid plans? Proven ways to ensureIT success. Apparel Industry Magazine,60(8), 56–57.

Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., & Balloun, J.(1996). Ranking of system implemen-tation success factors. ProjectManagement Journal, 27(4), 49–53.

Kapur, G. K. (1999). Bad managementis to blame for IT skills crunch.Computerworld, 3(12), 32.

Kay, B. J. (1997). Who needs a projectsponsor? You do. Proceedings of the28th annual PMI seminars and sympo-sium (pp. 13–18).

Kerzner, H. (1989). Systems projectmanagement: A case study at the IRS.Journal of Systems Management, 40(1),7–9.

Kerzner, H. (1994). The growth ofmodern project management. ProjectManagement Journal, 25(2), 6–9.

Kloppenborg, T. J., Shriberg, A., &Venkatraman, J. (2003). Project leader-ship. Vienna, VA: ManagementConcepts Incorporated.

Kloppenborg, T. J., & Tesch, D. B.(2004). Using a project leadershipframework to avoid and mitigate infor-mation technology (IT) project risks.In D. P. Slevin, D. I. Cleland, & J. K.Pinto (Eds.), Innovations: Project man-

agement research 2004 (pp. 23–34).Newtown Square, PA: ProjectManagement Institute.

Kloppenborg, T. J., Tesch, D. B.,Manolis, C., & Heitkamp, M. (2006).An empirical investigation of the spon-sor’s role in project initiation. ProjectManagement Journal, 37(3), 16–25.

KPMG (Eds.). (1997). What went wrong?Unsuccessful information technologyprojects [Web Page]. Retrieved March19, 2002, from http://audit.kpmg.ca/vl/surveys/it-wrong.htm

Lechler, T. (1998). When it comes toproject management, it’s the peoplethat matter: An empirical analysis ofproject management in Germany. In F. Hartman, G. Jergeas, & J. Thomas(Eds.), IRNOP III—The nature and roleof projects in the next 20 years: Researchissues and problems (pp. 205–215).Calgary: Project ManagementSpecialization, University of Calgary.

Lechler, T., & Thomas, J. (2007).Conceptual and empirical implicationsof the role of senior management sup-port in project success. Presented at theIRNOP VIII Conference, Brighton.

Lundin, R. A., & Söderholm, A. (1995).A theory of the temporary organiza-tion. Scandinavian Journal ofManagement, 11, 437–455.

Martin, E. W., Brown, C. V., DeHayes,D. W., Hoffer, J. A., & Perkins, W. C.(1999). Managing information technology: What managers need toknow (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.

McKenney, J. L., Copeland, D. G., &Mason, R. O. (1995). Waves of change:Business evolution through informa-tion technology. Boston: HarvardBusiness School Press.

Mehrotra, V. (2005). Success ofteneludes project managers. OR-MSToday, 32(2), 18.

Melymuka, K. (2004a). Surviving thesponsor exit. Computerworld,38(7), 40.

Melymuka, K. (2004b). Firing yourproject sponsor. Computerworld,38(3), 35.



AP

ER

S

Miller, R., & Hobbs, J. B. (2002). Thestrategic front end of large infrastruc-ture projects: A process of nestedgovernance. Presented at the PMIResearch Conference, Seattle.

Müller, R. (2003). Communication ofinformation technology project spon-sors and managers in buyer-sellerrelationships. Unpublished DBA thesis,Henley Management College, BrunelUniversity, UK.

Müller, R., & Turner, J. R. (2002).Communication between IT projectmanager and project sponsor in abuyer-seller relationship. Presented atthe PMI Research Conference, Seattle.

Office of Government Commerce(OGC). (2005). Managing successfulprojects with PRINCE2. Office ofGovernment Commerce. London, UK:Stationery Office Books.

Office of Government Commerce(OGC). (2007a). Managing successfulprogrammes. Office of GovernmentCommerce. London, UK: StationeryOffice Books.

Office of Government Commerce(OGC). (2007b). Portfolio, programmeand project management maturitymodel. Retrieved October 10, 2007,from http://www.ogc.gov.uk/sdtoolkit/reference/tools/p3m3.pdf

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).(2004). OECD principles of corporategovernance (Revised ed.). Paris, France:Author.

Paton, S. (1997). Capturing return oninvestment with workflow. DocumentWorld, 2(3), 30.

Perkins, B. (2005). The elusive executivesponsor. Computerworld, 39(32), 46.

Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1988).Project success: Definitions and measurement techniques. ProjectManagement Journal, 11(1), 67–72.

Procaccino, J. D., Verner, J. M., Darter,M. E., & Amadio, W. J. (2005). Towardpredicting software development suc-cess from the perspective of practi-tioners: an exploratory Bayesian

model. Journal of InformationTechnology, 20(3), 187–198.

Project Management Institute. (2003).Organizational project managementmaturity model (OPM3) knowledgefoundation. Newtown Square, PA:Author.

Project Management Institute. (2004).A guide to the project managementbody of knowledge (PMBOK®

guide)–third edition. Newtown Square,PA: Author.

Project Management Institute. (2006a).The standard for program management.Newtown Square, PA: Author.

Project Management Institute.(2006b). The standard for portfoliomanagement. Newtown Square, PA:Author.

Puckett, J. C., & Kaczmarski, T. M.(1990). Project management forowners. Transactions of the AmericanAssociation of Cost Engineers,pp. 3–8.

Remington, K., & Pollack, J. (2002).Stakeholder management for projectcompetence. Presented at the 16thIPMA World Congress on ProjectManagement, Berlin, Germany.

Ryckman, H. O. (1987). Requirementdefinition techniques. Journal ofInformation Management, 8(3), 17–21.

Sahlin-Andersson, K., & Söderholm, A.(2002). Beyond project management:New perspectives on the temporary-permanent dilemma. Stockholm: Liber.

Slater, D. (1998). Business line backers.CIO, 11(11), 24–30.

Smith, J. J., McKeon, J. E., Hoy, K. L.,Boysen, R. L., & Shechter, L. (1984).Lessons from 10 case studies inInnovation—II. Research Management,27(6), 12–17.

Smith, M. (2003). Business processdesign: Correlates of success and fail-ure. Quality Management Journal,10(2), 38–50.

Stevens, S. M. (1998). Seven steps tosuccess for project managers.Presented at the PMI 29th Annual

Seminars and Symposium, LongBeach, California.

Turner, J. R., & Keegan, A. (2001).Mechanisms of governance in theproject-based organization: Roles ofbroker and steward. EuropeanManagement Journal, 19, 234–267.

Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2003). On thenature of the project as a temporaryorganization. International Journal ofProject Management, 21(1), 1–8.

Volkoff, O., Chan,Y. E., & Newson, E. F. P.(1999). Leading the development andimplementation of collaborativeinterorganizational systems. Information& Management, 35(2), 63–75.

Weaver, P. (2005). Effective project gov-ernance—A cultural sea change.Presented at the Project ManagementInstitute’s Asia Pacific Global Congress,Singapore.

Whitten, N. (2002, December). Dutiesof the effective project sponsor. PMNetwork, p. 16.

Yukl, G. (2005). Leadership in organi-zations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River,NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Zimmerer, T. W., & Yasin, M. M. (1998).A leadership profile of American proj-ect managers. Project ManagementJournal, 29(1), 31–38.

Lynn Crawford, PhD, is involved in project man-agement practice, education, and research andis a professor of project management at the LilleGraduate School of Management (ESC Lille),France, and Bond University, Australia. ThroughHuman Systems International Ltd. she workswith leading corporations that are developingorganizational project management competenceby sharing and developing knowledge and bestpractices as members of a global system ofproject management knowledge networks. She is currently involved in three PMI-fundedresearch projects: Exploring the Role of theExecutive Sponsor, The Value of ProjectManagement, and Impact of Complexity Theoryon Project Management. Results of a completedstudy have been published by PMI in a booktitled Project Categorization Systems: Aligning


Capability with Strategy for Better Results. Shehas been actively engaged in the developmentof global standards for project managementsince the late 1990s and has been instrumentalin the formation of the Global Alliance for ProjectPerformance Standards (GAPPS). She is vicechair of PMI’s Global Accreditation Center Board.

Terry Cooke-Davies has been a practitioner ofboth general and project management since theend of the 1960s and a consultant to blue-chiporganizations for over 20 years. He is thefounder and executive chairman of HumanSystems, which exists to help organizationsenhance delivery capability and demonstrateresults. Through Human Systems’ global clientnetwork, he is in close touch with the best proj-ect management practices of more than 100leading organizations. With a PhD in projectmanagement, a bachelor’s degree in theology,and qualificiations in electrical engineering,management accounting, and counseling, hehas worked alongside senior leaders and man-agers in both the public and the private sectorsto ensure the delivery of business criticalchange programs and enhance the quality ofleadership. He is recognized as a “thoughtleader” on the topics of project success andorganizational maturity, and has reviewed manynational and international standards (includingthe Project Management Institute’s OPM3 andthe Office of Government Commerce’s MSP andPMMM) as a subject matter expert. He is veryaware of the importance of leadership and cul-tural issues (the soft aspects) and also sys-tems, processes, and practices (the hardaspects) to the delivery of successful programsand projects. He is a regular speaker at confer-

ences across the world and is a regular contrib-utor to project management magazines. He is avisiting professor at Bond University, Australia,and an Honorary Research Fellow at UniversityCollege, London.

Brian Hobbs, PhD, PMP, is a project manage-ment research chair and has been a professor inthe master’s program in project management atthe University of Quebec at Montreal (UQAM) formore than 20 years. This program, of which heis a past director, is accredited by the ProjectManagement Institute’s Global AccreditationCenter. He has served a 3-year term on PMI’sStandards Members Advisory Group (MAG) end-ing in 2002 and joined the Research MAG in2006. He is a reviewer for both the ProjectManagement Journal and the InternationalJournal of Project Management. He has present-ed many papers at both research andprofessional conferences worldwide. He holds adegree in industrial engineering, an MBA, and a PhD in management.

Les Labuschagne is an associate professor andhead of the Business Information TechnologyDepartment at the University of Johannesburgin South Africa. He lectures on both the graduateand postgraduate levels and provides supervi-sion to a number of master’s and doctoralresearch students. He is a National ResearchFoundation–rated researcher and has publishedand presented several papers at local and inter-national conferences. He is an active profes-sional member of Project Management SouthAfrica (PMSA), where he currently serves as adirector. Previous positions include national

president and vice president of projects. He isalso a PMI member.

Kaye Remington in 2006 resigned her full-timeposition as director of the postgraduate projectmanagement program at the University ofTechnology Sydney to pursue new directions.Her time is now divided between her universityrole as research fellow, directorship of a nicheconsulting firm specializing in strategic andproject leadership in complex environments,writing books and papers, and lecturing inEurope, China, and Australia. She has recentlycompleted a term as Erasmus Mundus Scholar,which involved working with a consortium ofEuropean universities. The twin focus of herresearch in recent years has been the role ofthe executive sponsor and how complexity theo-ry informs our understanding of project com-plexity in practice. Recent publications includeTools for Complex Projects (2007) and she iscurrently working on a second book Tools forComplex Change, due to be published by GowerPublishing in 2009.

Ping Chen is a postdoctoral researcher atTsinghua University, China. Prior to her academ-ic career, she had 12 years of experience inproject management practice, during whichtime she spent 3 years in Cyprus as projectmanager of a highway project. She holds anMSc in engineering project management fromUMIST and a PhD in organization and manage-ment from Cranfield University, both in theUnited Kingdom. She is currently involved intwo PMI-funded research projects— Exploringthe Role of the Executive Sponsor and The Value of Project Management.

Governance and support in the sponsorship of projects and programs

Documents

Transcript of Governance and support in the sponsorship of projects and programs