Report
Carl06
ReadingC.pdf
2008 � Project Management Journal � DOI: 10.1002/pmj S43
P A
P E
R S
INTRODUCTION �
S everal factors have combined to draw attention to the impor- tance of sponsorship of proj- ects and programs. One factor
is that after several decades of attempting to improve success rates of projects by focusing on project-based management and the project manage- ment competence of practitioners, convincing evidence demonstrates that success or failure of projects is not entirely within the control of the project manager and project team. Contextual issues are crucial in influ- encing the progress and outcomes of projects, and a key theme that has emerged is the importance of top man- agement support (Baker, Murphy, & Fisher, 1988; Lechler, 1998; Lechler & Thomas, 2007; Zimmerer & Yasin, 1998).
Another factor that has drawn attention to the sponsorship role is increased focus on corporate gover- nance, resulting from numerous high- profile corporate collapses, which has highlighted the need for accountabil- ity, transparency, and the ability to implement strategy. Projects can be seen as temporary organizations, established within the framework of the permanent organization (Lundin & Söderholm, 1995; Sahlin-Andersson & Söderholm, 2002; Turner & Müller, 2003). The permanent organization is required to conform to corporate gov- ernance requirements such as those established by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 2002 (USA) and similar regulatory instruments, of which over 35 have
Governance and Support in the Sponsoring of Projects and Programs Lynn Crawford, ESC Lille, France, and Bond University, Sydney, Australia Terry Cooke-Davies, Human Systems International Limited, Folkstone, United Kingdom Brian Hobbs, University of Quebec at Montreal, Montreal, Canada Les Labuschagne, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa Kaye Remington, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia Ping Chen, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
ABSTRACT �
Several factors have combined to draw attention to the importance of sponsoring projects and programs. One factor is that after several decades of attempting to improve success rates of projects by focusing on project-based management and the project manage- ment competence of practitioners, convincing evidence demonstrates that success or failure of projects is not entirely within the control of the proj- ect manager and project team. Contextual issues are crucial in influencing the progress and outcomes of projects, and a key theme that has emerged is the importance of top management support. Another fac- tor that has drawn attention to the sponsorship role is increased focus on corporate governance resulting from 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 link between corporate and project governance and is important in ensuring that governance requirements are met and that support is provided to projects and programs. This article reports on research designed to address both formal and informal aspects of the sponsorship role and to provide guidance to organi- zations and professional organizations by defining the role and responsibilities of the sponsor within corporate and project governance frameworks and identifying the characteristics of effective perform- ance of the sponsor role. First, the role of sponsor- ship in the governance context is introduced; this is followed by a review of the literature relating to the sponsorship role, including its treatment in project and general management literature and in standards. The research methodology was specifically designed to take a holistic view of the sponsorship role, by examining the role in its project/program and organi- zational context and ensuring inclusion of views and
experiences of sponsors as well as those of project managers, team members, and other stakeholders. A qualitative approach was adopted, focusing on a small number of case-study organizations and proj- ects/programs enabling researchers to gain a rich understanding of the environment in which the role of the sponsor is realized. Over 108 interviews relat- ing to 36 projects/programs in nine organizations from five geographic regions (Australia, China, Europe, North America, and South Africa) were recorded, transcribed, and then coded by the five researchers involved in the study. A priori codes derived from five preliminary studies were used for primary coding of the data. As the transcripts were coded, 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 conceptual model for making sense of the sponsor’s role. This model reflects the differing perspectives that may exist at the interface of the act of governing the proj- ect, which requires that the project be looked at from the perspective of the parent organization (gover- nance), and the act of providing top management support, which requires looking at the parent organi- zation from the perspective of the project (support). Under differing circumstances, the sponsor may need to emphasize the provision of governance, or support, or both. Utilizing this conceptual model, sec- ondary codes were created reflecting quotations per- taining to governance, support, and behaviors of sponsors. Review of quotations provided a rich illus- tration of the governance and support aspects of the sponsorship role and gave substance to effective behaviors, which led to the discovery of useful oppor- tunities for connection with mainstream general management literature to further enhance under- standing. The conceptual model has significant potential to provide organizations and sponsors with guidance in understanding and defining the effective contextual 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 Programs P
A P
E R
S
been issued in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop- ment (OECD) countries since the release of the OECD “Principles of Corporate Governance” in 1999 (Gregory & Simmelkjaer, 2002). It is the responsi- bility of directors to ensure accounta- bility and transparency throughout all of their operations and to provide a structure through which the objectives of the company are set, and the means of attaining those objectives and moni- toring performance are determined (OECD, 2004). Visibility and control must be maintained throughout all activities of both the permanent organ- ization or ongoing operations and the temporary organization(s) or projects and programs undertaken. While cor- porate governance must be consistent across the permanent organization, governance of projects and programs may vary within that framework. For instance, one project of an organization may be undertaken as a strategic alliance with another organization, or under a contract. In each case, the con- tract will specify the specific gover- nance arrangements for that project (Hazard & Crawford, 2004). In satisfying corporate governance requirements, management must ensure coordination between governance of the permanent and temporary organizations. The sponsorship role constitutes this point of intersection. The sponsorship role can therefore be seen as important both in terms of ensuring that governance requirements are met and in providing support to projects and programs.
In designing the research reported here, the aims were to address both formal and informal aspects of the sponsorship role and to provide guid- ance to organizations and professional organizations in:
• defining the role and responsibili- ties of the sponsor within corporate and project governance frameworks and
• identifying the characteristics of effec- tive performance of the sponsor role.
Following is a review of the litera- ture relating to the sponsorship role including its treatment in both litera- ture and standards; an explanation of the research design and methodology; a review and analysis of results from the research and presentation; and discus- sion of a model to guide understand- ing, structuring, and conduct of the sponsorship role under differing con- textual circumstances.
Sponsorship in the Literature The following review of the literature focuses specifically on the role of the project sponsor in relation to project governance. The literature review commences with a review of the role of the project sponsor as represented in the major international project management standards. This is fol- lowed by a review of the current state of knowledge derived from the project management practice literature and research findings both from the project management academic literature and the general management literature.
Representation in International Project Management Standards Although we recognize that a number of national and organizational standards are in use, this review confines its exam- ination to three generally accessible sources of project management stan- dards, all of which are used internation- ally. The standards reviewed in this survey are those developed by the Project Management Institute (PMI), the Association for Project Management (APM), and the Office of Government Commerce (OGC), United Kingdom.
An examination of the PMI stan- dards found that, individually and collectively, the four standards, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide)–Third Edition (Project Management Institute (PMI), 2004), OPM3® (PMI, 2003), The Standard for Program Management (PMI, 2006a), and The Standard for Portfolio Management (PMI, 2006b) do not provide a clear and consistent
treatment of sponsorship as a topic. However, project sponsorship is men- tioned several times throughout the documents.
The PMBOK® Guide is largely written from the perspective of the project man- ager and the project team managing a single project. Project governance and the sponsor role are not its primary focus. The sponsor is defined as “the person or group that provided financial resources. . .” (Section 2.2 Project Stakeholders and glossary). However, there are a number of other references to the project sponsor role, which give an overview of this role in the context of the management of a sin- gle project, which is the stated scope of this standard. References to the project sponsor’s role in this standard include the following responsibilities: issuing the project charter (Section 4.1); authority in change control (Section 4.6); formal acceptance of deliverables (Section 4.7); dictating major milestones (Section 6.5); QA support (Section 8.2); clarify funding and scope for the project team and influ- encing others (Chapter 9 Introduction); and communicating with the project manager (Chapter 10).
OPM3® addresses organizational project management but makes very few specific references to the project sponsor role. No specific reference to this role was found in the Knowledge Foundation; however, some references were found within Appendix I, Program and Portfolio Management Process Models. These were consistent with those found in the PMBOK® Guide. The OPM3® self-evaluation questionnaire contains one question that specifically addresses the project sponsor role, “Are the sponsor and other stakeholder(s) involved in setting a direction for the project that is in the interest of all stake- holders?” (Question #1). This question is linked to four best practices: deter- mining project scope; establishing strong sponsorship; considering stake- holder interests; and selecting projects based on organization’s best interests.
No section of The Standard for Program Management is devoted
2008 � Project Management Journal � DOI: 10.1002/pmj S45
specifically to the sponsor role. The definition given above from the PMBOK® Guide is reproduced, but what could be considered to be several com- plementary definitions of the program sponsor are also presented. Section 17.2 describes the program sponsor role as: “The individual or group who champi- ons the program initiative, and is responsible for providing project resources and often ultimately for deliv- ering the benefits.” This section also defines the “program governance board” as “the group responsible for ensuring that program goals are achieved and providing support for addressing pro- gram risks and issues.” In section 2.3.1 (p. 21), the “executive sponsor” in a list of roles in program governance is followed by the statement, “Responsible for creat- ing an environment that will ensure pro- gram success.” Note that the document alternates between the terms “program sponsor” and “executive sponsor.”
The Standard for Portfolio Manage- ment seems to take project sponsorship as a given, with neither a definition nor any substantial discussion. The most important reference to the project sponsor is found in the section on stakeholder roles and responsibilities (section 2.2.4, Sponsors, p. 17). Other brief references to the sponsor role are made in several sections throughout the document (section 2.2.5; section 1.6; section 1.10; pp. 27, 37, and 59.)
“Directing Change: A Guide to Governance of Project Management” (APM, 2004) specifically identifies the project sponsorship role as one of four main components of the governance of project management and lack of clear senior management ownership and leadership as one of seven common causes of program and project failure. Project sponsorship is described as the effective link between the organiza- tion’s senior executive body and the management of the project with deci- sion making, directing, and representa- tional accountabilities.
Other standards in general use, such as PRINCE2 (OGC, 2005), Managing
Successful Programmes (OGC, 2007a), and Portfolio, Programme, and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3) (OGC, 2007b), do address the role of the sponsor under various nomenclatures by prescribing specific functions within the project governance hierarchy.
PRINCE2 distributes the responsi- bility for project sponsorship over three roles, which are constituted as the proj- ect board. The project board comprises the customer or executive, a senior representative of the user, the senior user, and someone representing the supplier 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 manager with the necessary decisions for the project to proceed and to help the proj- ect manager and team overcome any obstacles.
Managing Successful Programmes clearly defines a governance structure. Sponsorship rests with a group known as the Sponsoring Group, which con- tains the investment decision makers and includes the senior responsible owner (SRO). It may also be known as the program board and comprises sen- ior-level sponsors of the program who provide investment decisions and top- level endorsement of the rationale and objectives for the program. There is also some reference to role behavior, and it is recommended that the mem- bers of the SRO must lead by example and demonstrate commitment and direct involvement. In this model, the SRO, otherwise referred to as program director, is ultimately accountable for the success of the program.
Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3) is a reference guide for structured best prac- tice. It breaks down the broad disciplines of portfolio, program, and project man- agement into a hierarchy of key process areas (KPAs). It does not have a specific KPA called “Governance,” but the 2.2 Programme Organisation KPA states that
“the Sponsoring Group for each program should ensure that the governance arrangements are appropriate.”
Representation in the Project Management Literature Awareness about the importance of the role played by the sponsor, or represen- tative of the organization, has been steadily 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 at exploring the nature of the role. In an early critical study of project manage- ment processes, Kerzner (1989) obser- ved that during the evolutionary stages of a project executive managers may be reluctant to provide visible ongoing support until they are convinced that the system will work. Other research projects 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). Evidence from the academic literature has also been supported by the practice litera- ture (Ingram, 1994; Kay, 1997; Melymuka, 2004a, 2004b; Perkins, 2005; Stevens, 1998). Nevertheless, with few exceptions (Crawford & Brett, 2001; Hall et al., 2003; Helm & Remington, 2005a, 2005b; Kloppenborg et al., 2006), very little research has examined the sponsor role in any depth.
Initial understanding of the role of the project executive sponsor as the person or group responsible for approving finance has gradually been expanded to include many other key functions that appear to be directly related to project success ( Jiang, Klein, & Balloun, 1996; Lechler, 1998; Zimmerer & Yasin, 1998). Several authors empha- size the necessity for high-level sponsor involvement and commitment to the project to ensure the availability of resources needed and the appropri- ate level of attention from senior
S46 2008 � Project Management Journal � DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Governance and Support in the Sponsoring of Projects and Programs P
A P
E R
S
management (Cooke-Davies, 2002; Remington & Pollack, 2002). Benjaminsen (2000) examines this idea in the context of the information tech- nology (IT) industry, asserting that the presence of an executive sponsor is fundamental to achieving a successful project. Other writers ( Jeffries & Robertson, 1999; Melymuka, 2004a; Paton, 1997; Slater, 1998) support this based on reports from practitioners, and M. Smith (2003) goes so far as to argue that project success is directly related to the seniority of the sponsor within the organization. The need for effective communication, and the criti- cality of balancing social and procedur- al aspects of communication within organizations (KPMG, 1997; Miller & Hobbs, 2002), is highlighted by several studies, such as Kerzner (1994). Müller (2003) also stresses the sponsor’s role as critic.
A case study in the IT industry (Müller & Turner, 2002) emphasizes the importance of “softer” skills for project sponsorship, particularly high-level communication skills, a point supported by other writers (Black, 2004; Hall et al., 2003; Hartman & Ashrafi, 2002; Kapur, 1999;). These authors provide some degree of insight into the role of the executive sponsor across various disciplines. Turner and Keegan (2001), in describing governance mechanisms adopted by project-based organiza- tions, identify two essentially separate but complementary roles that they entitle steward and broker. There is some parity between the role of “bro- ker” and that of project sponsor, in that the broker takes an entrepreneurial role associated with establishing and man- aging customer interfaces.
Crawford and Brett (2001), drawing on a review of the literature, a survey, and nine case studies, identify the con- textual determinants of the role of the project sponsor in relationship to the nature of the organization and the project type, and identify potential aspects of the role from the perspective of project managers. Topping the list
was responsibility for budget alloca- tion, a traditional perception of the role; however, in second place was political support for the project. Challenges to effective sponsorship identified in this study included recog- nition and definition of the sponsor role, provision of guidance and training for executive sponsors, acceptance of the role and related responsibility by the executive sponsor, and the effect of changes of executive sponsor through- out the life of the project. These find- ings are supported by Whitten (2002).
In the public sector, the project sponsor is described as the person responsible for representing the public client who acts as day-to-day manager of the client’s interests within the project. Analysis of interviews with sponsors by Hall et al. (2003) revealed the complexity of the sponsor’s role. Sponsors are simultaneously involved in juggling multiple needs of stakehold- ers and user groups, departmental pro- cedures, and government edicts while dealing with a legacy of mistrust and adversarial contracts. The main conclu- sion derived from this research was the importance of the “softer” cultural and attitudinal issues and the need for project sponsors to develop long-term relationships with key stakeholders and acquire significant experience in their role.
Helm and Remington (2005a, 2005b) undertook an analysis of the roles and responsibilities of the project sponsor in projects from a range of industry sectors that had been identi- fied by project owners as both complex and high-risk. Project managers and sponsors with experience in managing these kinds of projects were asked to define sponsorship characteristics that contributed to project success under these conditions. The most frequently cited characteristics required were: appropriate seniority and power in the organization; political knowledge and savvy; ability/willingness to make proj- ect/organization connections; courage/ willingness to battle with others on
behalf of the project; ability to motivate the team and provide ad hoc support to the team; willingness to partner with the project team and project manager; excellent communication skills; person- al compatibility with other key players; and ability/willingness to challenge the project and provide objectivity.
Nevertheless, as Procaccino, Verner, Darter, and Amadio (2005) illustrate, in some sectors executive sponsors are not routinely identified for all projects, nor do sponsors remain engaged for the whole project. In some respects, this cavalier approach to the role of the project sponsor is reflected by Englund and Bucero (2006), who report that 70% of sponsors interviewed in the IT sector did not possess accurate project status data, and 50% of them had never visit- ed the customer site.
In a recent study, Kloppenborg et al. (2006) focused their attention on the initiating stage. They built upon earlier work that identified risk factors (Kloppenborg, Shriberg, & Venkatraman, 2003; Kloppenborg & Tesch, 2004) and, with the help of experienced project managers, linked project risk factors and success outcome measures with sponsorship behaviors. They found a significant correlation between each of six behavior factors (establishing com- munications and commitment, defin- ing and aligning the project, defining performance/success, mentoring the project manager, prioritizing and selecting, and establishing project teams) with at least one of the three success outcome measures (meeting agreed requirements, customer’s per- ception of success and the firm’s future, such as market share).
Representation in the General Management Literatures An argument for the criticality of the sponsorship role has also been gather- ing momentum in the general manage- ment academic literatures, particularly in relation to research and development projects, interorganizational ventures and organizational redevelopment and
2008 � Project Management Journal � DOI: 10.1002/pmj S47
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 and Friedman (1988) argued that role spec- ification of the user and sponsor in the development and implementation of management information systems had not been sufficiently developed. Burbridge and Friedman’s work is of interest because it is an early example from the literature recognizing the role of the sponsor as extending beyond tra- ditional financial responsibilities.
McKenney, Copeland, and Mason (1995), in their book focusing on busi- ness evolution and change through information technology, identify three roles that they label the senior executive sponsor, the technological maestro, and the gifted technologist or technical team. Chakravarthy and Lorange (2007) also acknowledge the critical role of the executive sponsor, particularly with respect 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 senior executive sponsors, either internal or external, 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, and Burt (2006) also propose the need for early critical consideration of the influ- encing role of the project sponsor.
Conclusion From the Literature Review It is apparent that recognition of the importance of the sponsorship role in research literature is increasing in both the project management and general management literature. Nevertheless, until very recently, research and prac- tice literature has confined itself to
acknowledgment of the importance of the role in relation to other key roles. There is general consensus about the importance of the role; however, with the exception of the few key studies dis- cussed above, the research literature reveals that the role is largely unex- plored.
Methodology Empirical research concerning the sponsorship role has tended to rely heavily upon the opinions of project managers. There is a sound practical reason for this. Sponsors are notorious- ly difficult to access, either for research or for any form of training and develop- ment for the role. They usually claim that they, as members, almost by defi- nition, of senior management in the permanent organization, are too busy to commit time to discussion or devel- opment of their competence in a spon- sorship role. They are only marginally members of the project management community and see little value in con- tribution to research or developing skills that they perceive to be directly project-related.
The research reported here was specifically designed to take a holistic view of the sponsorship role, by exam- ining the role in its project/program and organizational context and ensur- ing inclusion of views and experiences of sponsors as well as those of project managers, team members, and other stakeholders. To do this, a qualitative approach was adopted, focusing on a small number of case-study organiza- tions and a moderate number of proj- ects/programs, enabling researchers to gain a rich understanding of the envi- ronment in which the role of the spon- sor is realized.
The research was conducted by a geographically distributed team of researchers in two phases. The first phase comprised the conduct and analysis of results from five separate research 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 to effective performance of the sponsor- ship role.
The results of these independent studies, although utilizing different methodologies and perspectives, demonstrated remarkable consistency and provided a sound platform for Phase Two of the research.
The nature of Phase Two of the research, which is the focus of this arti- cle, was both confirmatory in that data was coded using a priori codes derived from the five studies conducted in Phase One, and exploratory in that transcripts were analyzed to identify emergent themes. A qualitative appro- ach was considered most appropriate to developing a rich and well-grounded understanding of the sponsorship role. Selection of organizations as the pri- mary focus for data collection enabled the sponsorship role to be examined against a good understanding of con- text. Interviews with sponsors and key team members on nominated proj- ects/programs allowed for inclusion of a range of perspectives on the role.
Phase Two involved nine organiza- tions and 36 projects/programs across five geographic regions: Australia, China, Europe, North America, and South Africa. Organizations in each region were selected with a view to examination of programs/projects dealing with IT-enabled change. Each organization was asked to nominate four projects or programs, two of which would ideally be considered by the organization as successful and two
S48 2008 � Project Management Journal � DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Governance and Support in the Sponsoring of Projects and Programs P
A P
E R
S
considered less successful. Information was gathered at the organizational level concerning governance and management of projects, and then interviews were conducted with spon- sors, program/project managers, and other project participants concerning the evolution of the particular program or project, with particular emphasis on the role of the sponsor. Some of the 108 interviews related to more than one project, for example, where a sponsor was responsible for more than one of the projects/programs under examina- tion. Tables 1 and 2 provide a summary of data sources.
Interviews were recorded, tran- scribed, and then coded in ATLAS.ti 5.0 using codes derived from Phase One of the research. As transcripts were coded, researchers reviewed the data for emer- gent themes that might suggest addi- tional codes. Ultimately it was found that the a priori codes were sufficient to capture the themes evident in the data concerning the sponsorship role. More relevant was the creation of secondary codes or code families by grouping pri- mary or a priori codes into broader themes emerging from the data.
Most of the units of investigation included in the study were considered to be projects rather than programs (Table 3). The majority of projects/programs were in implementation or closeout phase at the time of the interview; a small num- ber had recently been completed, and one was an ongoing program (Table 4).
Participating organizations were asked to nominate two successful and two less successful projects or pro- grams for examination. Table 5 indi- cates that this was largely achieved, as 16 of the projects/programs examined were considered successful and 20 projects/programs ranged from mod- erately successful to challenged.
The following section provides an analysis of results of the research and a model for assisting in contextual understanding of the requirements of the sponsorship role.
A Conceptual Model for Making Sense of the Sponsor’s Role Standing as he or she does with one foot in the permanent organization and the other foot in the temporary organi- zation (the program or project), the sponsor performs a pivotal role in both influencing the success (or failure) of the project and in providing the perma- nent organization with a governance mechanism 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
2008 � Project Management Journal � DOI: 10.1002/pmj S49
• the parent organization is failing to provide the project team with deci- sions that are necessary to maintain- ing planned progress;
• the project manager and/or team is known to be inexperienced or weak; and
• there are early signs of difficulty with the project such as a possible shortfall in benefits realization.
It is possible to locate the particular perspective required of a sponsor on a two-dimensional space, bounded by the two independent perspectives of governance and support. Such a framework is illustrated in Figure 1. Interestingly, the need for each of the distinctive emphases is expressed by sponsors, as well as by project and program managers and their team members. More will be made of this framework when the final research is published, but for the purposes of this article, it will be used as a preliminary “lens” through which to examine the insights from the data on the 36 projects.
Investigating the Research Data in the Light of the Proposed Conceptual Model The Emphasis on Governance Discussing the emphasis on governance, for example, sponsors commented on the 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 a project manager, simply because he doesn’t have the clout to escalate. Then it’s part of the sponsor’s role to step in. . . . As a sponsor you have to recog- nize when that’s happening. You need to keep an eye on what the issues are so you know when you need to intervene.” Mechanisms for doing this differ, but one sponsor commented, “I have been sponsoring a number of reviews on the program to assure its value of delivery.”
There are particular points in the life 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 is possible, however, to conceive of cir- cumstances in which either of these perspectives might exist independently of the other.
For example, a sponsor may need to emphasize 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 performing poorly against the parent organiza- tion’s expectations;
• the parent organization faces rapidly changing market conditions;
• corporate governance requirements (such as Sarbanes-Oxley) have drawn attention to the particular project;
• there is suspected illegal, or noncom- pliant, behavior on the part of the project team;
• the project is mission-critical or has a high level of exposure; and
• there is a need to realign the project to new strategy or organizational context.
Similarly, a sponsor may need to emphasize a support perspective if: • the parent organization is failing to
provide sufficient resources to the project;
• some parts of the parent organization are resisting the project’s implemen- tation;
• different stakeholders in the parent organization are seeking to impose on the project team conflicting defini- tions of its objectives or scope, or to impose untenable constraints;
organization. The diversity of tasks involved in these roles is matched only by the variety of conceptual lenses through which performance of the tasks can be examined.
In seeking to make sense of not only the different discourses repre- sented in the literature to date, but also the breadth and richness of material gathered in more than 100 hours of interviews for the particular research described in this article, the researchers have found it necessary to develop a coherent conceptual frame- work through which to examine the multiplicity of individual experiences described by the interviewees. The framework must be robust enough to encompass different kinds of projects undertaken in different industries, dif- ferent organizational structures, and different philosophies of manage- ment.
Whenever an interface exists, dif- ferent perspectives may be obtained by looking through it from opposing directions. In this case, the act of gov- erning the project requires that the project be looked at from the perspec- tive of the parent organization (gover- nance), and the act of providing top management support requires looking at the parent organization from the perspective of the project (support). In the literature, the necessity for each of these is stressed, but the two differing perspectives are not distinguished in any structured manner. The sponsor may have to provide the one, or may have to provide the other, but both are
S50 2008 � Project Management Journal � DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Governance and Support in the Sponsoring of Projects and Programs P
A P
E R
S
the emphasis on governance is particu- larly high. As one sponsor explained, “Sponsoring the investment proposals going forward, making sure they got signed off, they’re areas I was involved in. And whenever I travel across our manufacturing sites, I take a very keen interest to see how the program is actu- ally working or what the issues are with it.” As a result of this emphasis, “If you look at the program per se in its own right, you would have no doubt that we are addressing the right issues and the right components, and that it must deliver the benefits.”
Governance is not simply a matter of pronouncing judgment on the merits of proposals put forward by the project team. The parent organization can expect the sponsor to provide expertise from a business perspective to ensure that the proposed project or program is the one that it requires. Sponsors talk of
“owning [the project] from idea to implementation and then right through to the point of realizing the business benefits.” This can require a particular emphasis when initially scoping the project and developing its strategy. Sponsors acknowledge this in terms such as “I see the role of project sponsor as someone who has to repre- sent the business and its requirements on a project.”
When matters go relatively smoothly, this emphasis is one that the sponsor brings to regular meetings with the project manager and core project team. The sponsor and project manager together are able to ensure that the interests of the parent organization are accommodated by the project. When that doesn’t happen, however, the par- ent organization has to move to protect its own interests through such drastic action as calling for exceptional
reviews, as a consequence of which the project might be redefined, the project manager replaced, or both. As one sponsor described such an incident, “That took us about three months to reprioritize the project, repopulate it with different staff, with a new project manager, and then to rebudget and really understand what the budget was.”
But sponsors are not alone in acknowledging the need for an empha- sis on governance when circumstances dictate. Astute project managers recog- nize the unique value that a competent sponsor can add. “A sponsor is good because they can . . . ask really good, pertinent questions about key areas around, ‘Are we really going to get the benefits? I’m feeling a bit uneasy about this sort of thing.’” They are also aware of the political and cultural realities that can so easily result in projects not delivering value to the parent organiza- tion: “The sponsor needs to make sure that the business case is solid from a business point of view, that it’s not being run for political reasons, to increase their span of control or impor- tance, or, ‘I’ve always wanted to have one of these widgets so now I’m in a position where I can order them to build one.’” In summary, as one project manager put it, “We look to the sponsor to provide the direction, based on their business acumen.”
The Emphasis on Support Even when projects are clearly being undertaken for the right reasons and make strong commercial, strategic, and operational sense, parent organi- zations contain many powerful people who do not always see their best inter- ests being served by supporting the project.
It is this arena, and in particular in the competition that almost always exists for scarce resources, that project managers look to sponsors for the kind of support that they need in order for the project to succeed. As one project manager explained, “a sponsor has to
Low G, Low S Low G, High S
High G, Low S
Lo w
N e
e d
f o
r g
o ve
rn an
ce
High G, High S
High
H ig
h
Low
Need for support
Representing the interests of the temporary organization
R e
p re
se n
ti n
g t
h e
in te
re st
s o
f th
e p
e rm
an e
n t
o rg
an iz
at io
n
Figure 1: Conceptual framework for understanding the role of a project sponsor.
2008 � Project Management Journal � DOI: 10.1002/pmj S51
have the capability and the decision to influence others . . . in the sense of making sure that commitment required for resources and capabilities to imple- ment, etc., is strong enough to make things actually happen. That’s not just in the early days of the program but also to make sure that what we’re trying to achieve is sustainable and it’s not just something that disappears at the end of the project. So the project spon- sor carries that role not just now, but ongoing for sustainability purposes.”
This practical influence and sup- port needs to work in relationships with stakeholders external to the organization and throughout the par- ent organization: “They have to under- stand and work with me in my role, and to do that they have to be able to put on their company hat rather than their business area hat. . . . They have to commit the time and energy of their parts of the business that need to be involved in the project. They have to be able to get involved in difficult stake- holder management issues across other parts of the business with similarly sen- ior colleagues.”
Just as project and program man- agers acknowledge the emphasis on governance, however, so do effective sponsors acknowledge the need for support. Sponsors of projects adjudged by their parent organizations to be suc- cessful reflect this in their views of the sponsor’s role: “You need to be able to defend the project at the higher levels within the company, especially when there are limited resources and there are other projects competing for those resources. . . . The sponsor should be a guy that’s taken the project to heart, really understands the project, buys into it, and gives all the support to the project team on the ground that he can.” One sponsor reported, “I decided to take the more proactive approach with the customer and said, ‘Look, here are the things we recognize need to be done. Let’s prioritize what you need and we’ll work on making it happen.” Another showed support in a different
way, “When we made big deadlines, we made sure that we celebrated those with the team.”
There is a substantial amount of evidence from the interviews that the emphasis on both governance and sup- port are recognized as being important by both sponsors and project man- agers. The model developed and pre- sented here has been validated, during workshops with senior project/pro- gram managers and executives respon- sible for project/program management in large corporations. The reaction has been quite positive. The executives can relate to the relatively simple model, while recognizing that it captures a great deal of the complexity and vari- ability that they observe in the exercise of this role in their organizations.
Relating Project Sponsor Roles to Mainstream Management and Leadership Literature The sponsor role conceptualized as a pivotal role between the parent organi- zation and the project can be seen as an example of leadership in a specific organizational context. In fact, the con- ceptual framework identified through this research resembles a number of theories of leadership or manage- ment that were first introduced during the 1960s. Perhaps the most familiar of these is the managerial grid (Blake & Mouton, 1982) that described man- agers in terms of concern for people and concern for production. According to the model, effective leaders and managers (the distinction between the two is far from clear in Blake and Mouton’s work) have a high concern for both people and production. For this reason, the effective person is referred to as the “high-high leader.”
It would be wrong, however, to equate governance with concern for production or support with concern for people. The actual question of man- agement style is, as it were, a third dimension to the grid (perhaps dealing with effectiveness of interpersonal rela- tions) and applies equally to concerns
in the permanent organization as it does to concerns between the perma- nent organization and the project. Yukl (2005), moreover, reports that survey research provides only limited support for the proposition that high-high lead- ers are universally more effective than others, but points out that research based on critical incidents and inter- views “strongly suggest that effective leaders guide and facilitate the work to accomplish task objectives while at the same time maintaining co-operative relationships and teamwork” (p. 60).
What the current research suggests is that effective sponsors are able to “guide and facilitate” (to borrow Yukl’s words) the work on behalf of either the permanent organization or the project, while at the same time maintaining cooperative relationships with each of the organizations (permanent and tem- porary) that they are representing.
What It Takes to “Guide and Facilitate” Sponsors and project managers alike recognize that some skills, traits, and competencies help sponsors to be more effective in their roles, regardless of the emphasis. As one sponsor remarked, “You need good communi- cation skills in terms of working with stakeholders 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 is actually passionate about getting the project done, believes it will provide benefits, and will support that and champion the project and defend it in the appropriate forums. . . . Ownership of the need and desire to do the work, and ensure it’s successful, but also ownership of the business benefits of the project.”
Position in the organization is also important: “Seniority, a relationship with the stakeholders, and a relation- ship with the customer, the client, and knowledge of the project, why we’re doing this, what it involves.”
S52 2008 � Project Management Journal � DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Governance and Support in the Sponsoring of Projects and Programs P
A P
E R
S
But in practical terms, perhaps the most visible attribute is availability: “[The sponsor] must be accessible. It doesn’t help if you have a sponsor who kind of reports to God and you never get to see them because he doesn’t pro- vide the support function and the role he’s supposed to give you as the project manager. . . . We’ve had some that just couldn’t or wouldn’t find the time to sponsor a project properly. So their teams couldn’t get any of their time to meet with them or make decisions. They wouldn’t attend steering meet- ings, things like that.”
Conclusion The importance of the sponsor role is recognized in the literature and in the interviews, 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 and in the organizations in which inter- views were conducted. The role is played out quite differently in different organizational settings, on different projects and programs, and by differ- ent people interacting with their con- texts. A general conceptual model that captures this richness is needed. A general model could replace the partial representations reflecting only some aspects of the role or the role as it is played out in some contexts that cur- rently dominate much of the literature and much of the organizational dis- course as observed during the inter- views. The model presented here is a first attempt to provide such a general conceptual model.
Project/program sponsorship is a practice that is specific to the field of project/program management. It is, however, an example of leadership, albeit in a specific organizational con- text. Interestingly, the literature on the project/program sponsor makes almost no reference to the general literature on leadership. This may be a reflection of the dilemma faced by the field of proj- ect/program management—if it is to
exist as a field of endeavor, it needs to differentiate itself from general man- agement. But at the same time, proj- ect/program management would bene- fit from a better use of the vast amount of material that exists in the field of gen- eral management. Furthermore, as the field strives for recognition by those in the field of general management it must show a better grasp of the content of general management and in the process should better come to grips with the reality of project/management in gen- eral and its specific managerial roles in particular. The sponsor role may be but one example of the potential improve- ments in understanding.
In much of the project manage- ment literature, the project/program sponsor role has, at least until recently, largely been taken for granted. The increased interest in this role is associ- ated, generally, with a shift from a focus on the individual project to more of a focus at the organizational level. It is also associated more specifically with an increased emphasis on corpo- rate and project governance. As the taken-for-granted is examined more closely, as it has been during this research, the complexity and the vari- ability of the role become more evident. And as the complexity and the variabili- ty emerge from the observations and analysis, the need for a synthesis that captures the richness of the reality while rendering it manageable become evident. This is exactly what happened during the present research project. An overview of the process and the product has been presented here. But the journey is not yet over. Analysis of the data and work on the model continue. �
References Association for Project Management (APM). (2004). Directing change: A guide to governance of project manage- ment. High Wycombe, UK: APM.
Baker, B. N., Murphy, D. C., & Fisher, D. (1988). Factors affecting project success. In D. I. Cleland & W. R. King
(Eds.), Project management handbook (2nd ed., pp. 902–919). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Barrow, C. (1990). Implementing an executive information system: Seven steps for success. Journal of Information Systems 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 a science of leadership. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 275–291.
Borys, B., & Jemison, D. B. (1989). Hybrid arrangements as strategic alliances: Theoretical issues in organi- zational combinations. Academy of Management Review, 14, 234–249.
Burbridge, J. J., Jr., & Friedman, W. H. (1988). The roles of user and sponsor in MIS projects. Project Management Journal, 19(2), 71–76.
Cairns, G., Wright, G., Van der Heijden, K., Bradfield, R., & Burt, G. (2006). Enhancing foresight between multiple agencies: Issues in the use of scenario thinking to overcome fragmentation. Futures, 38(8), 1010–1019.
Chakravarthy, B., & Lorange, P. (2007). Sponsoring renewal. Business Strategy Review, 18(3), 39–45.
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The “real” suc- cess factors on projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 185–190.
Cooke-Davies, T. J. (2005). The execu- tive sponsor—The hinge upon which organisational project management maturity turns. Presented at the PMI Global Congress EMEA, Edinburgh.
Cooke-Davies, T. J., Crawford, L. H., Hobbs, J. B., Labuschagne, L., & Remington, K. (2006). Exploring the role of the executive sponsor. Presented at the PMI Research Conference, Montreal.
2008 � Project Management Journal � DOI: 10.1002/pmj S53
Crawford, L. H., & Brett, C. (2001). Exploring the role of the project spon- sor. Presented at the PMI New Zealand Annual Conference, Wellington, New Zealand.
Crawford, L. H., & Cooke-Davies, T. J. (2005). Project governance: The pivotal role of the executive sponsor. Presented at PMI North America, Toronto.
Cummings, T. (1991). Innovation through alliances: Archimedes’ hall of mirrors. European Management Journal, 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 multidivisional environment. Journal of Systems Management, 41(2), 25–31.
Gregory, H. J., & Simmelkjaer, R. T. (2002). Comparative study of corporate governance codes relevant to the European Union and its members states on behalf of the European Commission. New York: Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP.
Grover, V. (1993). An empirically derived model for the adoption of customer-based interorganizational systems. Decision Sciences, 24, 603–640.
Guldentops, E. (2004). Governing information technology through COBIT. In W. Van Grembergen (Ed.), Strategies for information technology governance (pp. 269–309). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
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.
Hartman, F., & Ashrafi, R. A. (2002). Project management in the informa- tion systems and information tech- nologies industries. Project Management Journal, 33(3), 5–16.
Hazard, V., & Crawford, L. H. (2004). Defining project governance.
Presented at the ProMAC Research Conference, Tokyo, Japan.
Helm, J. & Remington, K. (2005a). Adaptive habitus? Project managers’ evaluation of the role of the executive sponsor 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 infrastructure projects by senior project managers. Project Management Journal, 36(3), 51–61.
Ingram, T. (1994). Managing client/server and open systems proj- ects: A 10 year study of 62 mission- critical projects. Project Management Journal, 25(2), 26–37.
Jeffries, S., & Robertson, S. (1999). The best laid plans? Proven ways to ensure IT success. Apparel Industry Magazine, 60(8), 56–57.
Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., & Balloun, J. (1996). Ranking of system implemen- tation success factors. Project Management Journal, 27(4), 49–53.
Kapur, G. K. (1999). Bad management is to blame for IT skills crunch. Computerworld, 3(12), 32.
Kay, B. J. (1997). Who needs a project sponsor? You do. Proceedings of the 28th annual PMI seminars and sympo- sium (pp. 13–18).
Kerzner, H. (1989). Systems project management: A case study at the IRS. Journal of Systems Management, 40(1), 7–9.
Kerzner, H. (1994). The growth of modern project management. Project Management Journal, 25(2), 6–9.
Kloppenborg, T. J., Shriberg, A., & Venkatraman, J. (2003). Project leader- ship. Vienna, VA: Management Concepts Incorporated.
Kloppenborg, T. J., & Tesch, D. B. (2004). Using a project leadership framework 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: Project Management Institute.
Kloppenborg, T. J., Tesch, D. B., Manolis, C., & Heitkamp, M. (2006). An empirical investigation of the spon- sor’s role in project initiation. Project Management Journal, 37(3), 16–25.
KPMG (Eds.). (1997). What went wrong? Unsuccessful information technology projects [Web Page]. Retrieved March 19, 2002, from http://audit.kpmg.ca/ vl/surveys/it-wrong.htm
Lechler, T. (1998). When it comes to project management, it’s the people that matter: An empirical analysis of project management in Germany. In F. Hartman, G. Jergeas, & J. Thomas (Eds.), IRNOP III—The nature and role of projects in the next 20 years: Research issues and problems (pp. 205–215). Calgary: Project Management Specialization, University of Calgary.
Lechler, T., & Thomas, J. (2007). Conceptual and empirical implications of the role of senior management sup- port in project success. Presented at the IRNOP VIII Conference, Brighton.
Lundin, R. A., & Söderholm, A. (1995). A theory of the temporary organiza- tion. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 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 to know (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: Harvard Business School Press.
Mehrotra, V. (2005). Success often eludes project managers. OR-MS Today, 32(2), 18.
Melymuka, K. (2004a). Surviving the sponsor exit. Computerworld, 38(7), 40.
Melymuka, K. (2004b). Firing your project sponsor. Computerworld, 38(3), 35.
S54 2008 � Project Management Journal � DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Governance and Support in the Sponsoring of Projects and Programs P
A P
E R
S
Miller, R., & Hobbs, J. B. (2002). The strategic front end of large infrastruc- ture projects: A process of nested governance. Presented at the PMI Research Conference, Seattle.
Müller, R. (2003). Communication of information technology project spon- sors and managers in buyer-seller relationships. Unpublished DBA thesis, Henley Management College, Brunel University, UK.
Müller, R., & Turner, J. R. (2002). Communication between IT project manager and project sponsor in a buyer-seller relationship. Presented at the PMI Research Conference, Seattle.
Office of Government Commerce (OGC). (2005). Managing successful projects with PRINCE2. Office of Government Commerce. London, UK: Stationery Office Books.
Office of Government Commerce (OGC). (2007a). Managing successful programmes. Office of Government Commerce. London, UK: Stationery Office Books.
Office of Government Commerce (OGC). (2007b). Portfolio, programme and project management maturity model. 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 corporate governance (Revised ed.). Paris, France: Author.
Paton, S. (1997). Capturing return on investment with workflow. Document World, 2(3), 30.
Perkins, B. (2005). The elusive executive sponsor. Computerworld, 39(32), 46.
Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1988). Project success: Definitions and measurement techniques. Project Management Journal, 11(1), 67–72.
Procaccino, J. D., Verner, J. M., Darter, M. E., & Amadio, W. J. (2005). Toward predicting software development suc- cess from the perspective of practi- tioners: an exploratory Bayesian
model. Journal of Information Technology, 20(3), 187–198.
Project Management Institute. (2003). Organizational project management maturity model (OPM3) knowledge foundation. Newtown Square, PA: Author.
Project Management Institute. (2004). A guide to the project management body 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 portfolio management. Newtown Square, PA: Author.
Puckett, J. C., & Kaczmarski, T. M. (1990). Project management for owners. Transactions of the American Association of Cost Engineers, pp. 3–8.
Remington, K., & Pollack, J. (2002). Stakeholder management for project competence. Presented at the 16th IPMA World Congress on Project Management, Berlin, Germany.
Ryckman, H. O. (1987). Requirement definition techniques. Journal of Information 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 in Innovation—II. Research Management, 27(6), 12–17.
Smith, M. (2003). Business process design: Correlates of success and fail- ure. Quality Management Journal, 10(2), 38–50.
Stevens, S. M. (1998). Seven steps to success for project managers. Presented at the PMI 29th Annual
Seminars and Symposium, Long Beach, California.
Turner, J. R., & Keegan, A. (2001). Mechanisms of governance in the project-based organization: Roles of broker and steward. European Management Journal, 19, 234–267.
Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2003). On the nature of the project as a temporary organization. International Journal of Project Management, 21(1), 1–8.
Volkoff, O., Chan, Y. E., & Newson, E. F. P. (1999). Leading the development and implementation of collaborative interorganizational systems. Information & Management, 35(2), 63–75.
Weaver, P. (2005). Effective project gov- ernance—A cultural sea change. Presented at the Project Management Institute’s Asia Pacific Global Congress, Singapore.
Whitten, N. (2002, December). Duties of the effective project sponsor. PM Network, 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 Management Journal, 29(1), 31–38.
Lynn Crawford, PhD, is involved in project man- agement practice, education, and research and is a professor of project management at the Lille Graduate School of Management (ESC Lille), France, and Bond University, Australia. Through Human Systems International Ltd. she works with leading corporations that are developing organizational project management competence by sharing and developing knowledge and best practices as members of a global system of project management knowledge networks. She is currently involved in three PMI-funded research projects: Exploring the Role of the Executive Sponsor, The Value of Project Management, and Impact of Complexity Theory on Project Management. Results of a completed study have been published by PMI in a book titled Project Categorization Systems: Aligning
2008 � Project Management Journal � DOI: 10.1002/pmj S55
Capability with Strategy for Better Results. She has been actively engaged in the development of global standards for project management since the late 1990s and has been instrumental in the formation of the Global Alliance for Project Performance Standards (GAPPS). She is vice chair of PMI’s Global Accreditation Center Board.
Terry Cooke-Davies has been a practitioner of both general and project management since the end of the 1960s and a consultant to blue-chip organizations for over 20 years. He is the founder and executive chairman of Human Systems, which exists to help organizations enhance delivery capability and demonstrate results. Through Human Systems’ global client network, he is in close touch with the best proj- ect management practices of more than 100 leading organizations. With a PhD in project management, a bachelor’s degree in theology, and qualificiations in electrical engineering, management accounting, and counseling, he has worked alongside senior leaders and man- agers in both the public and the private sectors to ensure the delivery of business critical change programs and enhance the quality of leadership. He is recognized as a “thought leader” on the topics of project success and organizational maturity, and has reviewed many national and international standards (including the Project Management Institute’s OPM3 and the Office of Government Commerce’s MSP and PMMM) as a subject matter expert. He is very aware of the importance of leadership and cul- tural issues (the soft aspects) and also sys- tems, processes, and practices (the hard aspects) to the delivery of successful programs and projects. He is a regular speaker at confer-
ences across the world and is a regular contrib- utor to project management magazines. He is a visiting professor at Bond University, Australia, and an Honorary Research Fellow at University College, London.
Brian Hobbs, PhD, PMP, is a project manage- ment research chair and has been a professor in the master’s program in project management at the University of Quebec at Montreal (UQAM) for more than 20 years. This program, of which he is a past director, is accredited by the Project Management Institute’s Global Accreditation Center. He has served a 3-year term on PMI’s Standards Members Advisory Group (MAG) end- ing in 2002 and joined the Research MAG in 2006. He is a reviewer for both the Project Management Journal and the International Journal of Project Management. He has present- ed many papers at both research and professional conferences worldwide. He holds a degree in industrial engineering, an MBA, and a PhD in management.
Les Labuschagne is an associate professor and head of the Business Information Technology Department at the University of Johannesburg in South Africa. He lectures on both the graduate and postgraduate levels and provides supervi- sion to a number of master’s and doctoral research students. He is a National Research Foundation–rated researcher and has published and presented several papers at local and inter- national conferences. He is an active profes- sional member of Project Management South Africa (PMSA), where he currently serves as a director. Previous positions include national
president and vice president of projects. He is also a PMI member.
Kaye Remington in 2006 resigned her full-time position as director of the postgraduate project management program at the University of Technology Sydney to pursue new directions. Her time is now divided between her university role as research fellow, directorship of a niche consulting firm specializing in strategic and project leadership in complex environments, writing books and papers, and lecturing in Europe, China, and Australia. She has recently completed a term as Erasmus Mundus Scholar, which involved working with a consortium of European universities. The twin focus of her research in recent years has been the role of the executive sponsor and how complexity theo- ry informs our understanding of project com- plexity in practice. Recent publications include Tools for Complex Projects (2007) and she is currently working on a second book Tools for Complex Change, due to be published by Gower Publishing in 2009.
Ping Chen is a postdoctoral researcher at Tsinghua University, China. Prior to her academ- ic career, she had 12 years of experience in project management practice, during which time she spent 3 years in Cyprus as project manager of a highway project. She holds an MSc in engineering project management from UMIST and a PhD in organization and manage- ment from Cranfield University, both in the United Kingdom. She is currently involved in two PMI-funded research projects— Exploring the Role of the Executive Sponsor and The Value of Project Management.
