Successful project sponsor behaviors during project initiation: an empirical investigation.

In the two leading project management bodies of knowledge, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK[R] Guide) and the Syllabus for the APMP Examination, the executive sponsor has long been recognized as critical to project success. Yet research to substantiate this role is limited. The term sponsor, by definition, suggests a financial responsibility. In fact, the most recent publication of A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge describes the sponsor as "the person or group that provides the financial resources, in cash or in kind, for the project" (Project Management Institute, 2004: 376). In the Syllabus for the APMP Examination (Association for Project Management, 2000), a publication of the Association for Project Management (APM), the sponsor is considered to be, in addition to provider of finds, the individual or group for whom the project is undertaken, the primary risk-taker, and the person(s) to whom the project manager reports (APM). This senior executive or executive sponsor is thought to "own" the project and is considered responsible for ensuring its success. He/she is also typically the one who proposes the project in the first place, whose business unit reaps its benefits, and whose effectiveness is used to predict project success. Involved and committed executive sponsors must have enough clout to dictate appropriate processes and/or make organizational changes necessary to bring about project success (Perkins, 2005).

Englund and Bucero (2006) recognize sponsorship as a commitment by management to define, defend, and support major activities from start to finish. As a link between the project manager and senior manager, the project sponsors' roles vary during the project life cycle to include: seller, coach, mentor, filter, business judge, motivator, negotiator, and protector. For purposes of this research, we define the sponsor as "normally a senior executive who has an interest in the results of a project. This executive may also have monetary control over the project. Often the executive has organizational clout, but does not often have significant time to personally manage the project" (Kloppenborg, 2009: 60-61).

Interestingly, very little research exists specifying exactly what tasks or behaviors constitute the role of the executive sponsor and how these behaviors contribute to project success. Furthermore, little research has tested the intuitively appealing notion that sponsor behavior during project initiation (from the first idea concerning the project to a signed charter or other form of commitment) contributes to project success.

The purpose of the current research is to identify and empirically validate sponsor behavior during the initiating stage of a project. After describing the mechanisms employed to identify specific project sponsor behaviors, we then discuss how these behaviors are validated and the extent to which they affect project outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY OBJECTIVES

While most project management bodies of knowledge recognize the sponsor as a key stakeholder on every project, very little research has examined empirically the role and behavior of the executive sponsor in achieving project success. Highlighting the need for such research, recent studies have stressed the role of the project sponsor with respect to project success, often quoting advice from senior project managers on how to deal with inadequate project sponsors (Englund and Bucero, 2006; Kloppenborg et al., 2006; Melymuka, 2004; Perkins, 2005).

Although there is a dearth of empirical research from which to base the current study, two studies standout out as particularly relevant. First, Helm and Remington (2005) undertook a combined analysis of, one, the roles and responsibilities of the project sponsor in relation to project organizational structure and, two, the behavior and practices of key identified agents. Couched in Grounded Theory, the methodology in this research involved the gathering of data (prior to interviews) via "assisted self-analysis." Grounded Theory allows, among other things, successive development of the researcher's knowledge regarding the subject matter. This process allows for the development of questionnaires containing items that might not otherwise be anticipated (prior to interviews). Based on this analysis, in conjunction with evidence from the literature, questions were formed into guided in-depth interviews with selected project personnel. Project managers and sponsors were asked to define the role of the project sponsor and how that role contributed to project success, ultimately leading to a list of frequently cited project sponsor characteristics, including: (1) appropriate seniority and power in the organization, (2) political knowledge and savvy, (3) ability/willingness to make project/organization connections, (4) courage/willingness to go to battle with others on behalf of the project, (5) ability to motivate the team and provide ad hoc support to the team, (6) willingness to partner with the project team and project manager, (7) excellent communication skills, (8) "personally compatible with other key players, and (9) ability/willingness to challenge the project and provide objectivity (Helm and Remington, 2005).

Another study considered project management in the public sector. The project sponsor in the public sector is described as the person responsible for representing the public client and acting as a day-to-day manager of the client's interests within the project. In a series of interviews considering the role of the project sponsor in areas where New Public Management (a term used to describe distinctive new themes, styles, and patterns of public service management, primarily in Europe) is being practiced, Hall, Holt, and Purchase (2003) revealed the complexity of the public sponsor's role. Public sponsors are simultaneously involved with juggling multiple needs of stakeholders and user groups, departmental procedures, and government edicts while continually dealing with a legacy of mistrust and adversarial contracts. Hall, Holt, and Purchase's (2003) research led to the suggestion that public sponsors develop a mechanism for dealing with the "softer" cultural and attitudinal issues in order to encourage dialog and promote cooperation. Thus, in order to cope with the variety of demands, public project sponsors need to develop long-term relationships with constituents as well as acquire significant experience in their role.

The Current Research

The stages of a project life cycle are often thought to include initiating, planning, executing, and closing (Kloppenborg et al., 2003). In our study, we limit the evaluation of project sponsor behavior to the initiating stage, which starts when a project idea is first identified and ends when the project is formally authorized, often in the form of a signed charter. At a minimum, "the project charter provides the project manager with authority to apply organizational resources to project activities" (Project Management Institute, 2004: 4). The project charter frequently includes purpose of project, requirements that satisfy stakeholder needs, and a summary milestone schedule among other things (Project Management Institute, 2004). As described in the PMBOK[R] Guide, the ability of the stakeholders, in this case the sponsor, to influence the final characteristics of the project, including costs, is highest at the start of a project (2004). We focus exclusively on the initiating stage for two reasons. First, we contend that sponsors have a more direct role in the initiating phase than they do later in the life of a project. Second, we hold that the initiating phase of a project is particularly significant due to the importance of getting a project off to a good start.

In addition to identifying and empirically validating project sponsor behaviors, we also aim to evaluate the effects of sponsor behavior. Thus, we need valid indicators of a project's success. Although we focus on sponsor behavior associated with the initiating phase of a project, we are interested in the effects these behaviors might have on a project's ultimate or overall success. Key indicators of information technology project success as described by Delone and McLean (1992) provide an initial framework for proposing project success indicators. This framework expands the early "triple constraint" notion of time, cost, and performance indicators to also consider information and project quality dimensions, as well as use and satisfaction constraints. Kerzner further expands project success to include time, cost, performance to specification, and customer acceptance (Kerzner, 2003). Mulcahy (2005) states that project success can be defined according to cost, time, scope, quality, risk, and customer (stakeholder) satisfaction. Shenhar and Dvir suggest that meeting schedule and budget constraints are part of an efficiency factor and meeting performance requirements are part of an impact on customer factor. They go on to say that to fully measure project success five factors need to be considered: efficiency, impact on customer, impact on team, business and direct success, and preparation for future (Shenhar and Dvir, 2007).

Pinto (2004) adds to this development and proposes a time-dependent dimension in assessing the effectiveness of a project, indicating that we must not only evaluate projects in current terms but also consider the future potential a project might offer in terms of generating new business and/or opportunities. Ultimately, Pinto (2004) describes four relevant dimensions of success that we adopt currently. These include project efficiency, impact on the customer, business success, and future potential. Project efficiency includes meeting budget and schedule expectations.

Impact on the customer includes meeting technical specifications, creating a product that is used by the client and satisfies customer needs, ultimately leading to customer satisfaction. Business success includes commercial success and market share. Future potential includes new markets, products, and technologies. We deem Pinto's expanded definition of project success as especially relevant because sponsors, as executives of an organization, should take a broad perspective in deciding what constitutes project success. Note that all of the definitions (including ours) contain the traditional success factors of time, cost, and performance.

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates