CHAPTER

6

Human beings, by changing the inner attitudes of their minds, can change the outer aspects of their lives.

—William James

Evaluating Sponsorship Culture

Every project can be considered as creating a change—its unique output did not exist before. What happens during that change process? Usually, we find conflicts and resistance. It is natural that as human beings working in organizations, we find positive forces like motivating challenges, strong sponsors, and driving groups. We also find negative forces like organizational resistance, management layers, and individual resistance. Some potential sources of resistance in projects managed in organizations are:

• lack of knowledge and motivation,
• low will or desire,
• nonalignment of goals,
• different values and beliefs, and
• lack of upper management direction.

Culture may be described as the way we do things in organizations, including “war stories,” symbols, rituals, shared values, power structures, traditions and norms, and styles. Being conscious of the culture in an organization is a step toward making necessary changes. Thus, a need arises to determine and evaluate an existing culture and compare it to a desired state.

This chapter reviews the types of culture often experienced in project-based organizations and the roles required to manage change, especially when sponsorship practices need to improve. We discuss the sponsor's financial responsibility role, which is not only a major area of contribution but also a sticky area when differing values cause problems. We offer survey and assessment forms to help evaluate the current reality. These set the stage for putting risk mitigation plans into place that foster a culture of excellence in sponsorship.

Corporate Cultures

A first step is to understand the cultural environment. Corporate culture may be classified as one of four types: An organization can have a power, bureaucratic, task-oriented, or person-oriented culture.

Power culture: A single person or small group leads the organization. There is little or no respect for formal structures and procedures. Often these organizations are entrepreneurial. When these organizations grow, they have adaptation problems. This culture is often difficult to change.

Bureaucratic culture: All activities are done following the rules. People place high value on loyalty. Political success comes from knowing how to play the system.

Task-oriented culture: The organization is built around temporary project teams. It relies on people playing fairly. The problem is that situations can easily break down into vicious political infighting.

Person-oriented culture: Each individual follows his or her own interests. Members have mutually beneficial links to other members.

Sponsorship roles may be quite clear in power and bureaucratic cultures when power and rules are vested in sponsors as a matter of course. A project-based organization prospers in a task-oriented culture; here the sponsor role needs careful delineation and implementation—the focus of this book. Sponsorship probably encounters its greatest challenge in a person-oriented culture because of the difficulties in getting people to support organizational goals. Assess and use your organization's culture orientation as a guide for subsequent actions.

Desired State

The following is a set of executive imperatives (Englund, 2010) that we believe are essential elements of a successful project sponsorship program within the realm of organizational project management. Consider these imperatives as a desired state within your organization.

• Focus on creating excellence in projects, programs, and portfolios.
• Move on to create organizational excellence through projects, programs, and portfolios.
• Create a “green” environment that sustains project-based work that achieves desired outcomes; eliminate pollutants and “toxic” actions that demotivate project managers and their teams.
• Recognize and support talented individuals—and get out of their way.
• Establish a portfolio management process that links execution to strategic goals, defines criteria for project selection, prioritizes projects and programs, and communicates this information to all project stakeholders.
• Get educated about the role of project sponsorship and set specific organizational goals about what it means to achieve excellence in project sponsorship.
• Support organizational learning, even at the risk of tolerating some failures.
• Give and get honest feedback.
• Establish shared values and put them into practice.
• Focus on results, not controls, and constantly correct course to stay on track.
• Lead with authenticity and integrity; set an example for others to follow.

A Challenge to Sponsors

In a PMI NorCal Symposium (Englund, 2008) at Stanford University, Esteri Hinman, a capability owner at Intel's Corporate Platform Office, included in her presentation a challenge, written in the form of a letter to executives:

Dear Executive,

We know you want to change the way we do business NOW. We recognize the business needs driving that change. But, it isn't that simple. Transformational change takes time, lots of time. Our own people will struggle against that change. Changing people is hard work. Here's how you can help us…

• Don't give out a mandate unless you have the fortitude to stay with it through the YEARS.
• Provide clear prioritization. We can't change everything at the same time.
• Celebrate the baby steps—loudly.
• Above all, remember this is about changing people's behavior. Model the behaviors we want, and catch people doing it right.

Sincerely,

Your Corporate Change Agents

PS: If you can't do these things for us, please destroy this letter, and ignore the team behind the curtain.

Hinman has found that if you cannot get whole-hearted, 100% support (which is very rare) from executives, it is more effective in the long run for project managers to fly under the radar. The executive imperative is to create an environment of support that encourages greater transparency.

Experiences make it clear that much more executive support is needed in today's organizations if they truly wish not only to survive but to prosper by creating value through project-based work.

Believe that positive results are possible but may not follow a clearly defined path. A sponsor imperative is to focus on creating excellence in projects, programs, and portfolios, which is accomplished by focusing on people, processes, and the working environment. Put checks in place to ensure that all initiatives are green, not toxic, with regard to human dynamics. Believe that these efforts will reap the results that the organization is chartered to produce. Recognize the value created through projects and programs within a portfolio, and make it a priority to support everything that enables that value-creation process. Set a goal to create excellence in project sponsorship. Be flexible and enjoy the ride!

Critical Roles

Everyone has roles to perform in a change management process. Call upon such a process if sponsorship is weak or nonexistent; it may also be necessary when moving from good to great. In organizations, clients request projects, and projects generate changes. Those changes usually affect people, methods, processes, and products.

There are four critical roles in organizations that run projects (see Figure 6.1): Advocates want change but do not have the organizational power to sponsor it themselves, sponsors have the authority to commit resources, agents carry out the change, and targets receive or adjust to the change. Change agents need to plan, understand the culture, and proactively create synergy; identify who will be affected by the change; and passionately build a vision that people will adopt because they believe in it.

The project sponsor needs to demonstrate strong commitment to the project. The risk of implementation failure increases if the sponsor commitment is low.

Sponsorship is critical to successful change and cannot be delegated to agents. “Initiating” and “sustaining” sponsors are advised not to fulfill each other's functions. Failure is inevitable, unless sponsors are educated or weak ones replaced.

Famous words from the 16th century still ring true today:

There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in this success than to take the lead in the new order of things. For he who innovates will have for his enemies all those who have prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm supporters in those who might be better off under the new. This lukewarmness arises partly from fear of their adversaries who have the laws in their favor, and partly from the incredulity of [humans], who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it.

—Machiavelli, The Prince, 1537

The best chance for achieving management commitment to project success occurs when people clearly understand and embrace the vision of success and see the cause-and-effect contribution of excellence in project sponsorship. Success breeds success. However, until sponsorship is recognized as a core competence, making changes follows a difficult path. People advance on this path when all players accept their interdependent roles and make the commitment to accountability.

Financial Responsibilities

More than any other player, the sponsor, depending on the organization, has specific responsibilities for project funding. Sponsor strengths and weaknesses correlate directly with project success and failure. Colleagues shared with us their thoughts about financial responsibilities related to sponsors.

Clifford Cohen, former IT manager and now project management consultant, says:

The sponsor is the person who controls the money that is paying for a project. He or she is not the user champion (the system expert and key source of system requirements), the performing organization, miscellaneous stakeholders, or any other persons/roles related to project execution. The sponsor controls the purse strings. End of story. This is the key to the sponsor's power and influence in the project equation…. In short, the only person on a project who I feel has the right to provide guidance of the type typically reserved for sponsors is the person who controls the purse strings. If they don't know how to provide the guidance, they shouldn't be controlling the money. People who don't control the money shouldn't be trusted to correctly perform the sponsorship role. No matter how responsible and savvy they may be, it isn't their money; and therefore they will invariably make at least one or two wrong decisions because of this. (personal correspondence)

Client sponsors are guided by financial responsibilities. The financial reasons for the project and the return on investment that the customer organization expects to achieve are perspectives that receive much attention. Sometimes the customer is only the owner of the project. This may hold true for contracted work but may not hold true for projects geared toward serving internal needs such as network upgrades and database development.

Our experience in new product development in the high-tech industry reveals that sponsors focus less on cost tracking and more on head count. It is a given that products need to be developed and money will be spent on those activities. Budgets are based on how many people are assigned to each project.

Similarly, in financial institutions that he has worked with, Dr. J. Davidson Frame (David), noted author and fellow of the Project Management Institute, observes that project budgets are defined not in monetary terms but rather in level of effort—body counts over time. As each project is reviewed by a project selection panel during the business case and project selection phase, the project champion may ask for one tester to serve two weeks on the project, two Java programmers to serve three weeks each, and so forth. These are IT projects carried out within the organization, especially since the majority of IT projects implemented by financial services companies address internal IT needs. Since 95% of project budgets are tied up in human resources, it is not necessary to monitor dollar budgets closely.

Frame further notes that when work is contracted out, the sponsor role needs to reflect the realities of contracting. This case likely focuses heavily on budgets. On cost-plus contracts, the contractor will be held accountable for what it bills the client, so the sponsor needs to be able to justify expenses and make sure costs do not get out of hand. On fixed-price contracts, every dollar wasted is a dollar deducted from profit.

Owner Versus Sponsor Roles

In further dialogue with these two colleagues, Frame also expressed strong beliefs about roles, albeit from a slightly different perspective. He says:

When I was actively working with [a number of] financial companies (most IT groups, but not always), each of these organizations straightened me out about the difference between project sponsors and owners.

Owners are the folks who own the results and who usually pay the bills. You don't want them guiding the project team, because they have an inherent conflict of interest—their primary concern is to get the results they need (as owners). Their bonuses may be tied to the results. So they will pressure the team to do whatever is necessary so that their personal goals are achieved—even when this may run against the interest of the organization (for example, they may encourage corner cutting).

Sponsors, in contrast, are senior managers who simultaneously serve the Executive Committee (that is, the governing committee of the company who—theoretically—are guardians of the organization's interests) and the needs of the team. Because they are powerful, they do everything they can to make sure that the project achieves visibility among senior managers and that it gets the resources it needs. At the same time, they make sure the team is behaving competently and serving the organization's needs. If the team is drifting away from the targets established by senior management, or if they feel team members are sloppy, etc., they pull out their clubs and smack a couple of heads. Unlike project owners, they don't have a personal stake in the results—their bonuses and job security are not tied to project performance. This means they can maintain a degree of objectivity lacking in owners. (personal correspondence)

Cliff Cohen responds:

I understand the distinction that David is making—absolutely valid. My view of sponsorship is very simple in a way, but it has served me well: If people are paying for something, they get what they want—period (subject to typical project constraints). Their control of the money means that they are the ultimate authorities as to what happens on the project. The users are relied on to define what is desired, and the sponsor ignores their input at great risk to the organization, but issues surrounding strategic justification for the project, prioritization, issue resolution, high-level advocacy, and so on are within the province of the sponsor.

I believe it is at least partly the responsibility of the PM [project manager] to ensure that sponsors, who are also owners, behave as sponsors while acting in that role. I go back to the fact that if they have been given control of the money, they have been entrusted to perform in the best interests of the organization and should be relied on to lead the project. If this does not occur, they should not be the sponsors. But if the wrong person is chosen as a sponsor, his or her failure and that of the project ultimately rests with those who assigned the role. At the end of the day, the success of an organization depends on the ability of more senior management to understand the criticality of such decisions. (personal correspondence)

Cohen and Frame appear to offer conflicting approaches. However, each has validity, depending on the situation. For example, within product development organizations, the sponsor usually drives the funding situation. As organizations and projects get larger, financial limits may be set, such as funding approval up to US$1 million projects. This sponsor must go higher to get approval for a US$1.4 million project. Accountability and authority may not match, but that should not be an excuse for not actively managing the role.

I (Englund) served as both sponsor and owner during a house build project. Myself, my wife Marilyn, and our builder (i.e., project manager) took four months to discuss, review options, and complete the conceptual design. We visited a parade of homes to get ideas that we incorporated into a custom home. Our vision became “Casa de Zen”—a mixture of Asian peacefulness combined with Spanish adobe germane to the neighborhood. We shared the vision with all stakeholders. We were present every day during the build. That allowed us to assess progress, catch problems early, make timely decisions, and answer implementation questions. It also meant we apparently annoyed some subcontractors who liked to do things their usual ways without interference. We stumbled through heated discussions with the builder over funding and several other issues. Yes, we accomplished our desired outputs in the finished home, but, as the owners, we were so vested in the outcome that some ongoing relationships suffered. As much as I tried to practice what we preach, the nature of personalities and situations still encroach upon achieving perfect outcomes.

Sponsor Evaluation Tools

Assessment of the current state of sponsorship in an organization is a first step toward making any changes or improvements. Essential beginning questions are “Is the sponsor dissatisfied with the way things are?” and “Are stakeholders dissatisfied with management support for their projects?”

We have several assessment tools to share. The first, simplest one is a quick test to gauge a current state of sponsorship in organizations. We present it as an introduction slide in seminars and use an audience response system polling tool to gather responses (see Figure 6.2).

Even in large groups of 100 people, there are usually only one to three people selecting the preferred answer, which is G. This technique allows us to query those people and discover good practices that led to this desired result. Others indicate problems within their organizations. A simple survey like this helps to get dialogue flowing.

The sponsor evaluation tool in Table 6.1 in the Appendix is designed to assess sponsor commitment for a specific project. Low levels of sponsor commitment increase the risk of implementation failure. This sponsor evaluation may be used during initial project planning, before the project has been announced, any time after the announcement has been made, and after project implementation is complete.

Why is it important to conduct this evaluation?

• To provide early warning for potential commitment problems and possible implementation failure
• To determine sponsor commitment toward the project
• To analyze possible differences in commitment during the implementation process
• To identify sponsor commitment that was generated after implementation

We have conducted this survey with hundreds of managers around the world. Results reflect rather dismal findings in practice compared to what could or should be about project sponsorship.

Interpreting Sponsor Factor Scores

The sponsor factor reflects the risk of implementation failure of a project: The lower the factor, the greater the risk of implementation failure. Figure 6.3 summarizes suggested action planning.

High Risk/Danger (10–29)

Most projects with a score in this range fail to achieve full implementation. An exception may be when the sponsor does not consider the project to significantly alter the status quo. Nevertheless, a project that is significantly disruptive or potentially threatening needs to have a degree of sponsorship well above this score. Three options to consider when the sponsor factor scores in this range area are:

Strengthen sponsorship. This instrument may be used as an educational tool to help sponsors better understand and value the critical nature of their role.

Identify alternative sponsorship. If it is not possible to strengthen the existing sponsor support, identify some other person or group with the power to legitimize the project and secure that party's agreement to serve as the sponsor. David Frame points out that if the sponsor owns the project budget, it is not easy to do this readily. As he notes, “It means, in effect, that you will be taking budget away from one person and transferring it to another. This may be perceived as a demotion of the original sponsor, which may have political repercussions if this individual is a senior VP.” In asking who will appoint the new sponsor (e.g., the project steering committee? the executive committee? the project manager?), he replies, “I have encountered smaller IT projects where the PM [project manager] is required to sweet talk a senior manager into being the sponsor. If the sponsor does not participate in project activities—a common experience—then the PM [project manager] needs to identify a new sponsor” (personal correspondence).

Companies like CEPSA (a Spanish petroleum company) specify in their project management methodology that if the sponsor assigned is not working properly, he or she must delegate all the power and authority to another manager. I (Bucero) have lived through such an experience in that organization, and it worked only when the initial sponsor asked for a meeting with all project steering committee members and formally delegated the sponsor's authority to a new manager.

Prepare to fail. Without strengthened sponsorship or new sponsorship, the probability of successful implementation is low. Facing these circumstances, the person in the change agent role (often a project or program manager) should consider aborting the change project or significantly altering the objectives so that new perspectives on the issues can develop. A project manager with minimal influence or power may not be in a position to abort anything. If senior management charters the project as part of a formal project launch process, the project manager may not be able to abort the project or change the approved objectives.

It is important for the change agent to be proactive. A project manager needs to take action and at the very least propose something to the management team or steering committee. The project manager can ask for a meeting. Doing so prevents the management team from saying that the project manager did not raise a red flag about the situation. If, for political reasons, there is pressure to continue the project without these alterations, the project manager needs to make preparations to deal with the problems that will arise when the project fails to produce intended results.

Moderate Risk/Caution (30–49)

Partial or tentative support from sponsors does not always result in implementation failure, but it does increase the chances of failure. It certainly means that implementation is more complicated. A sponsor factor in this range alerts you to the following possibilities:

• The sponsor may have an intellectual commitment to the change but fails to grasp the full meaning of what is necessary for successful implementation.
• The sponsor support for the change could deteriorate rapidly and with little warning.
• A significant amount of time and effort will need to be invested in sponsor education and maintenance.

Low Risk/Opportunity (50–70)

Sponsorship should never be taken for granted, but scores in this range generally indicate that the sponsor commitment is at a level necessary for successful change implementation.

Although the overall score is positive, any question with a score of 3 or less should not be ignored. Questions scoring less than 3 are often problem areas requiring special attention. For scores in this range area, consider extending sponsorship opportunities.

Tap the sponsor abilities on new projects that come up. If the sponsor is already assigned the sponsorship role on new projects, the job is to reuse experiences and ensure that best practices are followed. If not officially assigned, the sponsor can provide guidance as an unofficial mentor. Even better for the organization and project success is to designate official mentors; use the expertise developed by persons who acted as sponsors to coach and influence others to adopt best practices.

Interpreting the Results

The results for individual items can be interpreted by using Table 6.2 in the Appendix. Any item in the low-risk range indicates a high level of sponsor commitment and a positive feeling for successful implementation. Any item in the moderate-risk range indicates a moderate level of sponsor commitment and a guarded feeling for successful implementation. Any item in the high-risk range indicates a low level of sponsor commitment and a negative feeling for successful implementation.

Table 6.3 in the Appendix provides average benchmark scores. These have been collected from cumulative averages of more than 500 people worldwide who have submitted data.

Participants often score above average in some areas and below average in others. The survey for a class, seminar, or consulting engagement enables calculation of a class average, which is then compared to the cumulative average. In one example, class scores ranged from a high of 66 to a low of 32 (on a 70-point scale); the average success score was 5.7 compared to a cumulative success score of 5.1. This led to a recommendation that high levels of sponsor belief, public commitment, and support could be channeled into better procedures and commitment.

This report is typically for personal use to compare individual scores with the averages and to determine sponsor evaluation ranking in a percentile table. We recommend people assess a risk factor according to the supplemental material included with the original survey in the seminar handouts or on the projectsponsorship.com website. The data may prove useful in preparing an action plan by knowing what areas of support are strong or weak. Interest in creating a project office may also benefit by assessing the level of sponsor support before proceeding on implementation.

In one engagement where a dozen sponsors gathered for a briefing on project sponsorship, they scored themselves quite low on the survey. Amazingly, they scored project successes much higher. When I (Englund) asked them why this is so, the answer came back, “We have good project managers.” The point was made: Consider how much more is possible if you also had good project sponsors, those who could better support the project managers.

We suggest participants take the initiative to discuss the survey with their sponsors as well as reference and share this book with the sponsor. These steps may help all achieve greater levels of support and vastly improve project success rates.

Sponsor Risk Assessment

Before implementing a project, it is crucial to measure the readiness for project implementation. An overall environmental assessment survey instrument (EASI) is available in the “Offerings” section of http://www.englundpmc.com. EASI relates specifically to each component of Creating an Environment for Successful Projects (Graham & Englund, 2004). The environmental assessment may point to specific areas of strengths and development opportunities.

Table 6.4 in the Appendix introduces a risk assessment survey to raise the awareness of the organization's current positioning for the change caused by the project. This tool provides a high-level analysis of possible risk areas for the planned project. It allows you to learn more about the situation and the attitudes of the people involved. Risk is assessed on the basis of eight critical factors for any change: motivation, commitment, shared vision, culture, alignment, communication, planning, and skills.

Use this tool with all project stakeholders, possibly with different layers in the organization and with various groups. It will enable you to collect contrasted opinions and check the issues found. Report survey results back to all participants in a sensitive way. A sample radar chart (Table 6.4) in the Appendix provides a graphical means to summarize risk assessment scores. A tight grouping around low scores indicates low maturity and high risk. Jagged scores—some high and some low—helps pinpoint areas of strengths and development needs.

Nonsponsors can also complete the survey and use it to give structured feedback to the sponsor. Use these surveys as a data source for accelerating dialogue around project and sponsor processes as well as for providing feedback to the sponsor (feedback will be discussed at greater length in Chapter 7).

Uncertainty Remains

As much as risk management is defined as uncertainty that matters, the state of project sponsorship in many organizations is uncertain or tenuous at best. The impact of sponsors on project success matters a great deal. People are still struggling in their attempts to define the role of sponsors and to reconcile their perceptions. Some people use the terms sponsor and champion interchangeably. Others use sponsor and owner interchangeably. David Frame went on to share with us that best practice enterprises are moving toward consensus along these lines:

Sponsors are the bridge that connect the project work effort with the desires of senior managers. They concurrently serve two audiences. They serve the project team by doing what they can to make sure the team gets the support it needs to achieve project goals (including resources and visibility). And they serve senior managers by making sure that the team stays aligned with the goals established by senior managers and by reporting progress and concerns to senior managers.

However, when you look at the details of their activities and responsibilities, it is evident that they vary from enterprise to enterprise. In some enterprises, sponsors are super senior executives; in others, [they are] reasonably high level, experienced mentors (but not from the highest ranks of the organization). In some enterprises, they actively play a budget-monitoring role; in others, they do not. In some enterprises, they are appointed by senior managers; in others, by the project steering committee; in still others, they are recruited by the project manager. Beyond this, it is clear that the role of the sponsor will be different for projects that serve the internal needs of the organizations versus projects geared toward satisfying outside customers such as via contracts. (personal correspondence)

Colleague Tom Kendrick, writing about project risks (2015), identifies the crucial role of U.S. President Teddy Roosevelt in the completion of the Panama Canal. As a project sponsor who “dared mighty things,” Roosevelt provided the most significant morale builder for the project. As the first president to leave the country, he sailed to Panama in 1906 and visited the project. On his return, so much was written about the magnitude and importance of the canal that interest and support spread quickly.

On the other hand, Kendrick says,

Politically, the most difficult situation on complex projects arises from the changes requested by sponsors and management…. The sponsor can lower risk for the project by aggressively removing organizational barriers and administrative overhead, in addition to dealing with factors that may inhibit fast execution of the project. Conversely, management can exacerbate risk by contributing to these factors and initiating new work that requires people currently assigned to your project. Strong, continuing sponsorship is one of the key factors that separate risky projects that succeed from those that crash and burn. (p. 289)

Summary

This chapter defines roles for players who are managing change and sponsoring projects in organizations. Although a sponsor has a crucial role with regard to financial responsibility, the actual role and limits may vary, depending on the type of organization. It is important to understand how owner versus sponsor may impact projects. We also highlight the role of corporate culture. The nature of the organization guides the likelihood of success and how much work and time may be required to effect major change in how projects are sponsored. We challenge sponsors to embrace a desired future state that includes excellence in project sponsorship.

Surveys and evaluation tools help clarify the current reality in the organization and assess the risks of proceeding with project-based work. Use benchmark results as a means to compare with other organizations that may offer lessons learned about excellence in project sponsorship. Benchmark data also offers ways to get management attention on development opportunities. Project success rates may not immediately correlate with sponsor activities, but improvements for competitive advantage can emerge when a sponsorship culture is addressed.

When risk is low, go full speed ahead and use the capacity generated by these practices to extend organizational capabilities. Otherwise, be cautious when risk is high. You may need to find ways to educate sponsors to address these topics or else scale back on project commitments to lessen the impact of failure. Use awareness of cultural factors to select and guide sponsorship activities within an organization.