The role of the sponsor in successful public sector projects

THE ROLE OF THE SPONSOR IN DUTCH PUBLIC SECTOR PROJECTS

Joost van den Berg Master of IT Management Delft TopTech – School of Executive Education Delft University of Technology

THE ROLE OF THE SPONSOR IN DUTCH PUBLIC

SECTOR PROJECTS

Ir J.C. van den Berg

August 2010

Status Final

Version 1.0

Supervisor Dr. ir Gerard Wijers

Study Executive Master of IT Management

Faculty Delft TopTech – School for Executive Education

University Delft University of Technology

Cover page: Self Illumination, André Kutscherauer

The role of the sponsor in Dutch public sector projects

ii

Table of Contents

1 Executive summary 1

2 Introduction 3 2.1 Problem definition and relevance 3 2.2 Research goal and questions 6 2.3 Research approach and method 6

3 Project success in literature 9 3.1 Project success criteria 9 3.2 Critical success factors 10 3.3 A general framework for project success 12

4 The project sponsor in literature 15 4.1 Definition of the project sponsor 15 4.2 Activities of a sponsor 16 4.3 Sponsor characteristics 18

5 The Delphi expert method 20 5.1 Reasons for using Delphi 20 5.2 Background and characteristics of the Delphi method 20 5.3 Design and application of Delphi to our research 21

6 Results of the Delphi survey 24 6.1 Critical success factors for Dutch public sector projects 24 6.2 Contribution of the sponsor 29 6.3 Personal sponsor attributes 31 6.4 Implications of results for stakeholders 32

7 Validation and limitations of results 33 7.1 Validation of critical success factors 33 7.2 Validation of the contribution of the project sponsor to critical success factors 35 7.3 Limitations and evaluation 37

8 Conclusions and recommendations 39 8.1 Conclusions 39 8.2 Recommendations 41 8.3 Suggestions for future research 42 8.4 Reflection 44


iii

References 46

A Personal attributes of the sponsor (APM) 49

B Questionnaire for round 1 of the Delphi survey 50

C Questionnaire for round 2 of the Delphi survey 55

D Case study questionnaire and findings 60


1

1 Executive summary

Achieving project success continues to attract the attention of practitioners, media and researchers. One

would expect this continuing attention would have lead to a structural improvement of project performance.

However, research does not confirm there is a clear trend of structural improvement in project performance.

Estimates suggest the total budget wasted in 2004 on unsuccessful projects in the Dutch public sector is in

the range of € 1 billion, while some argue this is a conservative estimate. To improve project performance,

particular attention has been given in recent years to the role of the project sponsor that is seen by many as

pivotal for achieving project success. The Office of Government Commerce (OGC) defines the role as: The

individual ultimately responsible for the project that ensures the project is focused on achieving its objectives

and delivering a product that will achieve the forecasted benefits (Office of Government Commerce 2005).

Our research addresses critical aspects influencing success of Dutch public sector projects and the

relevance and contribution of the project sponsor. It focuses on IT related projects that we define as: projects

that apply information technology to reach their goals. We stress the fact that other aspects than IT alone

may play an important role in these project (e.g. interacting with users, conflicts of interest, and team

effectiveness). For this reason we use the term IT related project and not the term IT project. We formulate

the following main research question:

What are the critical factors that determine succes s in Dutch public sector projects and what should

be the role of the project sponsor in these project s?

To define the term critical success factor we use the definition given by Rockart (1982): Those few key areas

of activity in which favourable results are absolutely necessary to reach a particular goal.

Our research shows eleven factors are critical to the success of projects in the Dutch public sector. These

factors can be subdivided into two dimensions of success.

• The project management dimension, measured against the criteria cost, time and quality of

deliverables. It contains nine critical success factors.

• Project business success, measured against the business benefits realized and the satisfaction of

stakeholders involved in the project. It contains four critical success factors.

Two out of the eleven success factors appear to be linked to both the project management and the project

business dimension. The critical success factors resulting from our research are summarized and illustrated

in Figure 1. The project sponsors appear to play an important role in the project business dimension but also

in the project management dimension of the framework.

To effectively impact project management success , a project sponsor in the Dutch public sector should

primarily focus on activities to:

1. Generate a business case and ensure it is reviewed at defined milestones.

2. Set and maintain clear project goals and business requirements for and during the project.

3. Implement and maintain effective communication and stakeholder management to ensure structural

support and commitment for the project.

4. Implement and maintain effective project governance.

The following activities are of secondary importance for the project sponsor:

1. Ensuring adequate (sufficient) resourcing. In most projects resources are needed from different (parts of)

organizations that fall outside of the direct hierarchical responsibility of the project sponsor. Often, there

is a separate organizational function responsible for planning and allocating resources.

2. Ensuring effective planning and control. This is an activity that is traditionally considered a primary

responsibility of the project manager.


2

Results show no real consensus if the sponsor should play an important role in establishing and employing

good risk management practices for the project. The same applies to the factor selecting a capable and

effective project team.

� Business case review� Effective project governance� Good risk management� Adequate resourcing� Well selected, capable and

effective project team � Effective planning & control� Effective change management process

� Effective benefit management andrealization processes

� Appropriate project strategy

� Time� Cost� Quality

Impact

Project managementsuccess

� Benefits realized

� Stakeholdersatisfaction

Impact

Project businesssuccess

Critical success factors Success criteria

� Clear project goals and business requirements

� Effective communication and stakeholder management

Figure 1: Adapted critical success factors in the Dutch public sector

To effectively impact project business success , a project sponsor in the Dutch public sector should


1. Set and maintain clear project goals and business requirements

2. Implement and maintain effective communication and stakeholder management


1. Develop and sustain effective benefit management and realization processes

2. Develop and maintain an appropriate project strategy.

To successfully fulfil the sponsorship role, the sponsor should posses the following personal attributes . He

should

• Have the ability to influence internal and external stakeholders.

• Be capable to align the project with the interest of the organization.

• Provide clarity of direction.

• Appreciate how the project contributes to the corporate (public sector) strategy.

• Be motivated to act in the long term interest of the organization.

• Feel ultimate accountable for the success or failure of the project.

• Make effective decisions and take decisive action when necessary.

• Understand the sponsorship role.

Our results are first and foremost of interest to current and future sponsors of projects in the Dutch public

sector. They can use the adapted critical success factors to review projects during their life cycle. The

prioritized contribution of the sponsor to critical success factors can help to focus their own activities in

sponsoring projects. The sponsor attributes can be used by senior management to select and appoint a

sponsor that is fit and competent to fulfil this roll. Both aspects can also be of use in training and coaching on

project sponsorship. Project managers and other stakeholders can benefit from the results on the elaborated

role of the sponsor because it gives them more clarity on what they may expect from a project sponsor.


3

2 Introduction

Achieving project success continues to attract the attention of practitioners, media and researchers. One

expects this continuing attention would have lead to a structural improvement of project performance and a

consensus on the determinants of project success. However, research and publications illustrated in this

chapter do not confirm there is a clear trend of structural improvement in project performance. Moreover,

many publications on the subject still don’t explicitly define what they consider a successful project. Some

stress the fact that the notion of project success is context dependant: what is considered a success by

someone may be perceived unsuccessful by someone else or at a different point in time. The slow pace of

project performance improvement has made researchers expand their attention from the project itself to also

include its surroundings and context. Particular attention has been given to the role of the project sponsor

that is seen by many as pivotal for achieving project success. The Association of Project Management (APM)

defines the role as: The individual, who is the primary risk taker, on whose behalf the project is undertaken

(Association of Project Management 2000). But despite the agreement among researches on the relevance

of the role, Crawford, Cooke-Davies et al. (2008) conclude the role has not yet been researched extensively.

These aspects make the achievement of project success an intriguing and also relevant subject that is

difficult to grasp. This combination of intrigue and relevance is the reason for the research presented in this

thesis. It addresses critical aspects influencing success of Dutch public sector projects and researches the

relevance and contribution of the project sponsor. The research focuses on IT related projects that we define

as: projects that apply information technology to reach their goals. We stress the fact that other aspects than

IT alone play an important role in these project, such as user interaction, conflicts of interest and team

effectiveness. For this reason we use the term IT related project and not the term IT project.

2.1 Problem definition and relevance The success rate of IT related projects in the Netherlands remains a struggle, both in and outside of the

public sector. The 2009 Ernst & Young report on the performance of ICT projects in the Netherlands

(Ernst&Young 2009) indicates that 46% of ICT projects are successful, while 47% are partly successful and

7% of projects failed. These results are based on a survey held under approximately 600 respondents from

the public and private sector. The report shows some significant differences in the success rate between

various types of projects, as indicated in Figure 2. While the average success rate is 47%, projects that

realise a HRM or CRM system have a success rate closer to 30%. The survey does not explicitly distinguish

between the success rate of projects carried out in the public sector versus those in the private sector. It

does indicate comparable levels of satisfaction among respondents with projects carried out in both sectors.

This may suggest the success rate of projects in these sectors is also comparable.

Office migration

System migration

Salary system

Website

Financial system

Purchasing system

Planning system

CRM system

Information system

HRM system

successful partly successful failed

Figure 2: Success rate of IT related projects in the Netherlands in 2009


4

If we compare the survey results from 2009 with results from previous years (2006; 2007; 2008), we find that

2009 performance is actually below performance in 2008 while 2008 and 2007 show an increase in

successful projects (see Table 1).

2009 2008 2007 2006

Successful 46 % 54 % 48 % 41 %

Partly successful 47 % 42 % 48 % 49 %

Failed 7 % 3 % 4 % 10 %

Table 1: project success rate in the Netherlands from 2006 - 2009

The figures presented here indicate there still is a considerable need to improve project success rates.

Unfortunately, the research approach used for the survey is not fully clear which makes it difficult to value the

results. Did it use an explicit definition of what it considers a 'successful project', (e.g. on time, budget,

benefits realized)? Or does it use a stakeholder approach, meaning it considers a project successful if

stakeholders involved in the project find it a success. For a specific project different stakeholders may hold a

different opinion: a business manager may for instance view a project as a success while the supplier or IT

manager may hold a different opinion (or vice versa). If this stakeholder approach is used, it would be

valuable to know if for each project a representative group of stakeholders were included in the survey. For

this reason we interpret the results of the survey with some caution and only observe that it suggests there is

still substantial room for improvement in the performance of projects.

Reviews and audits on unsuccessful public sector pr ojects

Next to the results from the Ernst & Young surveys there are also audit and review reports available on

specific public sector projects that address their performance. Because of the transparency sought by the

public sector, these reports are often freely available and therefore a valuable source of information. In

general these are reports on major projects that have not achieved their goals (and may have been

terminated) or achieved their goals only partly requiring substantial extra resources. Recent examples

include a gateway review on the national e-Government NUP project (Docters van Leeuwen 2009) that

concludes it will fail if no extra measures are taken. In particular, improvement is required in the decision and

implementation power surrounding the project. Another example is a 2008 report on a large project of the

Netherlands Tax Administration office aimed at introducing a new process for rental and health care

payments (Rekenkamer 2008). It concludes the project has failed, was over budget by a factor of two and led

to 11.000 complaints of citizens. Comparable conclusions are drawn in a 2007 review of the P-direct project

(Rekenkamer 2007) that was initiated to form a single shared service centre for Human Resource

Management for multiple governmental departments. A last recent example is a case study on two projects

aiming to reduce administrative burdens of Dutch citizens and organizations (Janssen, van Veenstra et al.

2010). It shows significant delay in implementation and service usage caused by a lack of focus on benefits

realization, lack of implementation support, absence of a clear business case and a low level of trust among

parties involved.

Relevance of the project sponsor

All of these reports mention issues in the domain of business and user organizations that result in projects

becoming too complex and ambitious. Particular attention is given in these reports to the role of the project

sponsor (usually the initiator and financer of the project) as an important cause for failure. The Netherlands

Tax Administration office for instance concludes the minister holds the key to improving project performance

in his role as project sponsor (Rekenkamer 2007). But also outside the public sector there is broad

agreement the project sponsor is important for achieving project success. Weill and Ross (2002) call for

more responsibility of top executives in technology related decisions and suggest: "Top executives often feel


5

uncomfortable making hard choices about information technology. But when they abdicate responsibility,

they set their companies up for wasted investments and missed opportunities". They stress that problems

with for instance setting up CRM systems or ERP implementations often occur because senior executives

underestimate the business impact of these projects and fail to take responsibility for the organizational and

process changes required. Weill and Ross define 6 decisions top executives should hold in their own hands

of which the execution focused decisions are of particular interest to projects. Top executives should:

• Assign a business executive to be accountable for every IT project that monitors business metrics (such

as the anticipated business benefits).

• Lead the decision making on trade off between security, privacy and convenience.

• Decide which features are needed based on cost benefit analysis.

Other authors (Baker, Murphy et al. 1983; Lechler and Thomas 2007; Crawford, Cooke-Davies et al. 2008)

describe the importance of a sponsor as a means to secure top management support for projects. In their

view, top management support is seen as a critical factor for project success. Smith (2003) even argues that

project success is directly related to the seniority of the manager sponsoring the project in the organization.

Crawford et al. (2008) name the increased focus on corporate governance as a second driver for more top

management involvement. They state top management is responsible for maintaining coordination between

corporate governance and project governance. The sponsor should be part of both the project organization

and the line or business organization and is therefore in the best position to coordinate both types of

governance. Despite the agreement among researches on the relevance of the role, Crawford, Cooke-

Davies et al. (2008) conclude the role has not yet been researched extensively.

Financial impact of project failure

In 2007 the Dutch government accountability office researched different governmental IT projects to find the

causes for (partly) failed projects (Rekenkamer 2007). In their research the accountability office concluded

that the financial impact of failed or partly failed projects is substantial although not exactly known. The

accountability office reacted on figures published in the media (Dekker 2007) that stated the public sector

spend € 9.6 billion on IT in 2004 of which around € 4 billion were claimed to be wasted on unsuccessful

projects. The accountability office concluded that in 2004 the total public sector IT expenditures amounted to

€ 2.1 billion instead of the € 9.6 billion mentioned in the press. This would suggest the total budget wasted in

2004 on unsuccessful projects is substantially below € 1 billion but the accountability office did not suggest

such a conclusion. In their analysis, the accountability office used data from the Dutch central office for

statistics (CBS), resulting in their conclusion of € 2.1 billion on IT expenses. The CBS reacted on these

figures (Dekker 2008) stating the accountability office used outdated and incomplete information and

suggesting the actual expenditure far exceeds € 2.1 billion. Although the exact numbers are uncertain, it is

clear that substantial public sector financial resources are spend on projects that are not successful.

The figures presented here take into account the budgets allocated to the projects themselves. But projects

are usually started to realize financial and non-financial benefits by implementing and using their outputs in

user organizations. Delay in realization of these benefits or even not realizing them at all, has a financial

impact that comes on top of the figures mentioned above. So also from a financial viewpoint we conclude the

current success rate of IT related projects it is a realistic problem.


6

2.2 Research goal and questions The main goal of the thesis is to contribute to the understanding of key aspects influencing success in public

sector projects and to help define the role of the sponsor in these projects. We hope that by adding to this

field of knowledge we may help improve the success rate of public sector projects. We therefore formulate

the following main research question:

What are the critical factors that determine succes s in Dutch public sector projects and what should

be the role of the project sponsor in these project s?

The main research question can be subdivided in the following sub questions:

1. What are the main findings in literature on the criteria defining project success and their success factors?

2. How is the role of the project sponsor in project success defined in literature?

3. What are critical success factors for projects in the Dutch public sector?

4. What is the contribution of the project sponsor to these critical success factors?

To define the term critical success factor we use the definition given by Rockart (1982): Those few key areas

of activity in which favorable results are absolutely necessary to reach a particular goal. Our research aims to

first identify the factors that are key to achieving project success in the Dutch public sector. We then

research what the sponsor should contribute to the critical success factors. The context of these aspects is

illustrated in Figure 3. The figure highlights that the sponsor contributes to the critical success factors (areas

of activity) that in turn impact the success of a project, measured by its success criteria.

CriticalSuccessFactors

Project Success

impactcontributes

Sponsor

Figure 3: Context of aspects of our research

2.3 Research approach and method In Figure 4 we illustrate the approach for our research consisting of three phases and multiple steps. For

each step the output is given that serves as input for the next step. On the right of the figure the research

methods are indicated for each step. In the middle the reference is given to the corresponding research sub

questions and chapters in this thesis.

The research consists of three phases:

Phase 1: definition

In the first phase we define the problem by examining literature and by talking to practitioners from the field

of project management. We use the Scopus search portal of the university library to find the relevant

literature. The search keys 'project success', 'project sponsor' and 'project management' are the main search

keys we use. The main deliverable from this phase is the overall research question and its sub questions.

The problem definition and research questions are discussed in chapter 2 of this thesis.

Phase 2: elaboration

In phase 2 we review the literature on project success and on the role of the project sponsor. From the

literature we select a general framework for project success. We use it as a starting point for our research on


7

project success and the role of the project sponsor. In the research we apply the Delphi expert method to

adapt and expand the general framework to the Dutch public sector. We use the Delphi method because a

project success framework that specifically targets the Dutch public sector is currently not available. And also

because it is an effective way to unlock expert opinion from the sector. Experienced project and program

managers participate as experts in our Delphi survey. The participants are employed at consulting firm

'Verdonck, Klooster and Associates' (VKA) that targets the public sector as its primary customer. Therefore,

a substantial part of their experience is in public sector IT related projects. We discuss the literature review in

chapters 3 and 4 of this thesis and the background and design of the Delphi survey in chapter 5. Results of

our research are presented in chapter 6.

Phase 3: conclusion

Phase 2: elaboration

Phase 1: definition

Define research problem

and method

Review literature on

project success

Review literature on the

role of the project sponsor

Determine public sector

specific project success

factors

Determine the role of the

sponsor in public sector

projects

Conclusions &

recomendations

Validation

Research questions

Framework for

project success

The sponsor in literature

Public sector framework

for project success

Public sector framework

for project success and

Sponsor role

Validated results

Open

interviews

Literature

research

Focus: success

criteria and

factors

Delphi expert

survey

Focus on

public sector

factors

Literature

research

Delphi expert

study

Include task

and person

related

aspects

Research method

and focus

Case study

C2

Chapter and sub question

C3 S1

C4 S2

C5 S3

S4

C7

C8

C6

C5 C6

Figure 4: Research approach and method


8

Phase 3: conclusion

In the final phase we evaluate the results of our research against the original goals and questions and

discuss alternatives, limitations and suggestions for future research. We validate our results by comparing

these to existing reviews and audits performed on public sector projects and by performing a short case

study of a project in the Dutch public sector.


9

3 Project success in literature

Because of its relevancy for business results of organizations, project success is a theme that is researched

extensively in literature. The major part of this research is aimed at finding factors that impact project

success, based on the premise that knowing these success factors is the gateway to performance

improvement. However, a substantial part of publications fail to address the fundamental question of how

project success is defined: what criteria are used to determine if a project is to be considered successful.

Without properly defining project success it is impossible to validate if the critical success factors found

actually contribute to project success. Our research therefore distinguishes between project success criteria

and success factors as illustrated in Figure 5.

Critical

Success

Factors

Project

Success

Criteria

impact

Figure 5: two aspects of project success

This chapter gives an overview of literature on both project success criteria and success factors to illustrate

the current state of research on project success. It is therefore directed at research question 1: What are the

main findings in literature on the criteria defining project success and their success factors? From this

literature we use an existing framework for project success to further research project success and the role

of the project sponsor in the Dutch public sector in subsequent chapters of this thesis. This general

framework should fit the following criteria:

• It includes and distinguishes between success criteria and success factors as mentioned above

• It adheres to the definition of critical success factors given in paragraph 0

• It is based on well substantiated and validated research.

3.1 Project success criteria Given the relevance of projects for business performance one would expect that measuring the level of

success achieved by individual projects would be easy and straightforward. But De Wit already in 1988

concluded that "measuring success is complex and a project is hardly ever a disaster or failure for all

stakeholders during all phases in the project life-cycle" (De Wit 1988). He showed that the concept of project

success is time dependent: a project may be considered a success one day and a failure the next or vice

versa. And also stakeholder dependent: success is viewed differently by various stakeholders involved. De

Wit therefore concludes it is impossible to objectively measure the success of a project. Having said that, it is

still worthwhile to research and interpret criteria that define project success. Not so much to measure

success in absolute terms but to use when evaluating projects on achievement of its goals, what went right

or wrong and what can be learned for future projects.

Traditionally project success has been defined in terms of cost, time and quality (Wysocki R. 1995; Atkinson

1999) sometimes also referred to as the iron triangle. Atkinson notes this definition of project success is

closely linked to definitions given for project management in the past. Oisen (1999) for instance defines

project management as: Project Management is the application of a collection of tools and techniques to

direct the use of diverse resources toward the accomplishment of a unique, complex, one-time task within

time, cost and quality constraints. Similarly the British Standard in project management (British Standards

Institution 1996) gives the following definition: The planning, monitoring and control of all aspects of a project

and the motivation of all those involved in it to achieve the project objectives on time and to the specified

cost, quality and performance. In both definitions the factors of cost, time and quality are clearly visible. In a


10

recent survey among 236 project managers White and Fortune (2002) found that the iron triangle factors are

still widely used as criteria for project success.

But different authors have put forward there are other criteria that should be considered in project success.

De Wit (1988) differentiates between the success of project management for which time, cost and quality

criteria are suitable and the overall success of the project for which other criteria apply. For the overall

success, De Wit follows research by Baker, Murphy and Fischer (1983) defining project success as: the

project is considered an overall success if the project meets the technical performance specification and/or

mission to be performed, and if there is a high level of satisfaction concerning the project outcome among

key people in the parent organization, key people in the project team and key users or clientele of the project

effort. This definition emphasizes that meeting project goals (mission) and key stakeholder satisfaction are

important criteria for the overall success of a project. This distinction between success criteria for project

management and criteria related to overall success is also visible in the work of Cooke-Davies (2004). He

defines the criteria for overall success as business criteria that include stakeholder satisfaction and

realization of benefits. The importance of satisfaction among users, customers and other project

stakeholders is also visible in the work of Wateridge (1998) and Boehm (1989). Starting with Shenhar, Dvir,

Levy and Maltz (2001) project success is placed in an even broader perspective stressing the strategic

importance of projects. They propose a multi dimensional approach to define project success that

encompasses both short term project related aspects (efficiency, time, cost and quality) and longer term

business related aspects (benefits and preparation for the future). Similarly, Pinto and Pinto (1991) also

distinguish between short term and longer term success criteria. The short term criteria are related to the

project and its deliverables and are measured prior to project closure. The longer term criteria include

tangible and intangible benefits and are measured post project closure. Closer to home, Van Aken (2002)

discusses different options to come to an operational definition for project success. He concludes a definition

based on time, cost and quality is unusable since in many projects the actual implementation differs from the

initial plan or agreement without automatically leading to failure. He therefore decides to use an actor

definition: project success is the degree of satisfaction with the results of a project among stakeholders

involved. To come to a balanced opinion on the level of success, Van Aken stresses the importance of

including all stakeholder groups involved since each may have her own interest in, opinion on or perception

of the project.

Based on this overview of literature we conclude that project success criteria encompass both criteria for

project management success but also criteria for the overall business related success of a project.

3.2 Critical success factors Over the years a lot has been written by researchers but also practitioners on factors impacting project

success. Pinto and Slevin (1988; 1988) performed a survey under members of the Project Management

Institute resulting in 418 respondents. Based on the work of Baker, Murphy and Fischer (1983) they included

time, cost, user satisfaction and effectiveness as success criteria and found ten factors as critical for the

success of a project:

1. Project mission. Initial clarity of goals and general direction.

2. Top management support. Willingness of top management to provide the necessary resources and

authority/power for project success.

3. Project schedule/plans. A detailed specification of the individual action steps required for project

implementation.

4. Client consultation. Communication, consultation, and active listening to all impacted parties.

5. Personnel. Recruitment, selection, and training of the necessary personnel for the project team.

6. Technical tasks. Availability of the required technology and expertise to accomplish the specific technical

action steps.


11

7. Client acceptance. The act of ‘‘selling’’ the final product to its ultimate intended users.

8. Monitoring and feedback. Timely provision of comprehensive control information at each phase in the

implementation process.

9. Communication. The provision of an appropriate network and necessary data to all key factors (sic) in

the project implementation.

10. Troubleshooting. Ability to handle unexpected crises and deviations from plan.

More recently Lechler (1998) reviewed 44 different research studies and from them identified 8 critical

success factors that were named most frequently in the results of the different studies. Lechler used

adherence to time and cost, quality and satisfaction as criteria defining success. In a second step he

surveyed multiple respondents (receiving 448 responses) to research relationships between the critical

success factors. He identified the cause and effect relations illustrated in Figure 6 and researched the

importance or weight of each of the relationships.

Figure 6: cause and effect between critical success factors (Lechler)

From the weightings, Lechler concluded that the people factors (top management, project team and project

leader) are the most important factors impacting project success.

A summary of the critical success factors identified in the research of Baker et al., Pinto and Slevin and

Lechler is given in the first three columns in Table 2 below.

Baker et al. (1983) Pinto and Slevin

(1988)

Lechler (1998) Category of Cooke-

Davies (2004)

• Clear goals

• Goal commitment of

project team

• Project mission • Minimal goal

changes

Project management

and Project Business

• Accurate initial cost

estimates

• Planning and control

techniques

• Minimum start-up

difficulties

• Schedule / plans

• Monitoring and

feedback

• Troubleshooting

• Top management

support

• Planning /

controlling

• Top management

• Project leader

• Project team

• Participation

Project management


12

• Adequate funding to

completion

• Adequate project

team capability

• Task (vs. Social)

orientation

• On-site project

manager

• Technical tasks

• Personnel

• Absence of

bureaucracy

• Client consultation

• Client acceptance

• Communication

• Conflicts

• Information/

communication

Project business

Table 2: Summary of critical success factors

Cooke-Davies (2004) notes that the three studies mentioned here show common success factors that have

become 'accepted wisdom' in the project management community. They all emphasize the importance of

clear project goals, of accurate project planning, of adequate resources provided through top management

support and of what is today called effective stakeholder management. But Cooke-Davies also notes that the

distinction between project management success and project business success discussed in paragraph 3.1

is not reflected in these studies. Based on empirical research from more than 70 large organizations (2002)

Cooke-Davies concludes that the search for critical success factors depends on answering separate

questions: 'What factors lead to project management success?' and 'What factors lead to a successful

project?'. He therefore maps the critical success factors found in the studies of Baker, Pinto and Slevin and

Lechler discussed in this paragraph, into two categories: project management success and project business

success. This mapping is given in the last column of Table 2. Recent research by Ward, Murray et al. (2004)

and by Cooke-Davies (2002) focussing on the business value delivered by projects suggests that managing

the delivery of benefits is also a critical factor success. They conclude 'the existence of an effective benefits

delivery and management process that involves the mutual co-operation of project management and line

management functions' is a critical factor for the business success of a project. The same notion is also

reflected in the Val IT framework and MSP method for program management (OGC 2007).

To finish our literature review of critical success factor we conclude a distinction is made between two

categories of success factors. Factors relating to project management that may include clear project goals,

accurate project planning and adequate resources. And factors relating to the business success such as

client acceptance, communication and also benefit management.

3.3 A general framework for project success Based among others on the work discussed in this chapter, Cooke-Davies (2002; 2004) formulated a

framework for project success. Cooke-Davies follows the distinction discussed in this chapter between

project success criteria and success factors. As a second dimension he distinguishes between project

management success and project business success. The first is measured against the iron triangle criteria of

time, cost and quality while the second is measured against the business benefits realized with the project

results and the satisfaction of stakeholders involved. In this way Cooke-Davies constructs a framework that

consists of the general elements illustrated in Figure 7.


13

ProjectManagement

Success

impact

Project Success Criteria

CriticalSuccess Factors

ProjectBusiness Success

impact � Benefits realized� Stakeholder

satisfaction


Figure 7: A general framework for project success

Illustrated in Table 3, this framework meets the general selection criteria we discussed at the beginning of

this chapter. It also follows the distinction between the dimensions of project management and project

business success that is apparent in literature (discussed in paragraph 3.1 and 1 3.2). We therefore use this

framework in the next chapters to further study project success and the role of the project sponsor in Dutch

public sector projects.

Criterion Cooke-Davies framework It includes and distinguishes between success

criteria and success factors

Yes, distinguishes critical success factors and

project success criteria

It adheres to the definition of critical success

factors given in paragraph 2.2

Yes, it contains critical success factors that are

formulated as areas of activity

It is based on well substantiated and validated

research

Yes, discussed in paragraph 3.2

Table 3: criteria compared against the Cooke-Davies framework

Based on his analysis of published research on critical success factors, Cooke-Davies (2004) identifies the

following factors as critical for achieving project management success :

• Set clear project goals

Achieve and maintain clarity about the goals of the project. Define the project in a way that clarifies both

the goals of the project and the needs of stakeholders. Minimize changes to the goals once the project

has started.

• Well selected, capable and effective project team

Select and assemble a capable project team of task-oriented individuals, led by a competent leader.

Ensure that the team contains the right capabilities, is appropriately structured, communicates well, and

has good processes for teamwork, problem solving, and decision making.

• Ensure adequate (sufficient) resourcing

Ensure that the project is resourced adequately to the project scope and objectives. Mobilize top

management support and ensure that there is adequate support from the organization and effective

project administration.

• Establish clarity about technical performance requirements

Establish clarity at the outset about the technical performance required from the product and manage

the scope of work tightly, using a mature change management process.

• Effective planning & control

Plan meticulously, using well-established estimating procedures, and to a sufficient level of detail to


14

allow effective monitoring and control. Maintain excellent metrics that relate the technical content of

work done to the elapsed time and expenditure incurred.

• Good risk management

Employ established risk management practices that are well understood by all project participants,

including effective risk response development and control.

For project business success he identifies the following factors:

• Set clear project goals

Achieve and maintain clarity about the goals of the project. Define the project in a way that clarifies both

the goals of the project and the needs of stakeholders. Minimize changes to the goals once the project

has started.

• Establish stakeholder commitment and attitude

Establish and maintain active commitment to the success of the project and its mission on the part of all

significant stakeholder groups, such as sponsors, clients, owners, operations management, parent

company, suppliers, and so on. Establish effective communication and conflict resolution methods.

• Effective benefit management and realization processes

Develop and sustain effective processes during the project and after completion to deliver the

anticipated benefits of the project and ensure that they are realized. Ensure that a close link is

developed and maintained between anticipated benefits, the business case for the project, and the

explicit project goals.

• Develop an appropriate project strategy

Develop a project strategy, or ‘‘trajectory’’ in the words of Miller and Hobbs (2000), that is appropriate to

the unique environment and circumstances of the project. (Trajectory is a term that encompasses both

strategy and life cycle model, and is derived from a detailed study of 60 megaprojects.)


15

4 The project sponsor in literature

In this chapter we look in more detail to the role of the project sponsor as discussed in literature to answer

research question 2: How is the role of the sponsor defined in literature? Referring to Figure 8 we are

specifically interested in how this role relates to the achievement of project success.


Project Success

impactcontributes

Sponsor

Figure 8: Context of aspects of our research

To define the role, we first review definitions of the project sponsor from different publications in paragraph

4.1. Next, we discuss the activities of a project sponsor in paragraph 4.2. The last paragraph reviews the

(personal) characteristics of a sponsor as defined in project management literature.

4.1 Definition of the project sponsor In general the project sponsor is described in literature as a representative of top management (top

executives) with a particular project role. Three of the main project management standards and organizations

define the sponsor (sometimes referred to as the executive or business executive) as:

• The individual, who is the primary risk taker, on whose behalf the project is undertaken (Association of

Project Management 2000).

• The person that provides the financial resources in cash or in-kind for the project (Project Management

Institute 2004).

• The individual ultimately responsible for the project that ensures the project is focused on achieving its

objectives and delivering a product that will achieve the forecasted benefits (Office of Government

Commerce 2005).

Bryde (2008) suggests the role of the project sponsor consists of two separate but interlinked views. The first

is the external focus of the sponsor as a representative of the client organization or organizations, often

indicated as the business. In this role, the sponsor interacts with top management to agree a mandate

allowing him to take responsibility for the project. Activities include defining and realizing business benefits

and monitoring the business environment for risks and opportunities. The second part of his role is more

internal and focuses on the project and project team itself. It is aimed at providing the project manager and

the team the necessary support they need to fulfill their role. It may include activities such as ensuring

adequate resources, providing necessary training, creating a favorite environment for a project to succeed

and showing commitment to and belief in the project (Bryde 2008). The notion of a project sponsor providing

support to a project is sometimes also described as a "project champion" (Pinto and Slevin 1989): an

individual who identifies with the project and will use all the weapons at their command to break down

resistance, if it exists, and do all in their power to see the project succeed. The concept of championing a

project emphasizes the support activities and it therefore overlaps with the role of a sponsor. It doesn't

contain the sponsor as being a representative of top management that is responsible for business benefits.

Project champion and sponsor are therefore not exactly the same conceptions.

The notion that the role of a project sponsor has both a business focused and a project focused part is poorly

reflected in the sponsor definitions given in the beginning of the paragraph. The definition of the Association

of Project Management doesn't contain any reference to the relevancy of both elements and the Project


16

Management Institute only stresses the financial resources (internal focus). The Office of Government

Commerce does contain elements of both views. It stresses the focus on achievement of benefits (business

focus) and also on delivering a product and achieving project goals (project focus). For our research, we

therefore adhere to the sponsor definition given by the Office of Government Commerce. Apart from the

distinction between an external and internal view on the role of the project sponsor, the definitions given also

differ in scope and content. The only aspect contained in all three definitions is the agreements a sponsor is

an individual (as opposed to a group).

We conclude there is no clear, agreed and consistent definition in the project management community of (the

role of) the project sponsor. For our research we follow the definition given by the Office of Government

Commerce because that highlights both a business focus and a project focus:

The individual ultimately responsible for the project that ensures the project is focused on achieving its

objectives and delivering a product that will achieve the forecasted benefits.

4.2 Activities of a sponsor Crawford et al. (2008) review the representation of the project sponsor in international project standards set

by the Project Management Institute (PMI), the Association for Project Management (APM) and the Office of

Government Commerce (OGC). They conclude that the different PMI standards for project management

(PMBOK), program management (OPM3) and portfolio management do not provide a clear and consistent

picture of sponsorship. Publications by APM (2004; 2009) and by OGC (2005; 2007) give a more consistent

view on the role and activities of a sponsor. Both acknowledge the role of a sponsor has both a supporting

dimension directed at the project itself and an external dimension as discussed in paragraph 4.1. This is

clearly visible in the APM publication that explicitly distinguishes between three categories of activities: a) for

the board, b) for other stakeholders and c) for the project manager. But it doesn't mean there is complete

agreement between APM and OGC on all of the activities carried out by or under responsibility of a sponsor.

This point is illustrated in Table 4 and Table 5 that present the sponsor activities suggested in the APM

publication 'Sponsoring change: A guide to the governance aspects of project sponsorship' (APM 2009) and

the OGC publications Prince2 for project management (OGC 2005) and MSP for program management

(OGC 2007). The APM publication contains the most comprehensive list of activities that covers the activities

mentioned in Prince2 and MSP but also contains activities not mentioned in the OGC standards. Some areas

of activity such as business case management and monitoring progress and control are more detailed in the

standards of Prince2 and MSP than in the APM publication.

APM Sponsoring Change:

what the sponsor does

Prince2: responsibilities of the business

executive

MSP: responsibilities of the

senior responsible owner

External focus, representing top management For the board

Provides leadership on culture and values

Owns the business case

Oversee development of project brief and business case. Check proposed changes against Business Case.

Responsible for key programme information such as the business case


17

Keeps project aligned with organisation's strategy and portfolio direction

Keep project in line with customer strategy

Owns the vision for the programme and provides leadership and direction. Maintain alignment to organisation's strategic direction.

Governs project risk

Ensure risks are tracked and mitigated effectively. Monitor business risk.

Manage key strategic risks

Works with other sponsors

Acts as the programme champion

Focuses on realisation of benefits Recommends opportunities to optimise cost/benefits

Ensure benefits have been realised by holding post project review

Commission reviews on achievement of benefits

Ensures continuity of sponsorship

Provides assurance

Monitor and control progress at strategic level, review the business case. Brief corporate or program management on progress. Recommend action if tolerances are exceeded.

Commission reviews on capability of delivery

Provide feedback and lessons learned

Approve end project report and lessons learned

For other stakeholders

Engages stakeholders

Managing the interface with key stakeholders

Governs stakeholder communication

Ensure stakeholder interfaces and an communications are effective

Directs client relationship

Directs governance of users

Constraining user and supplier excesses

Ensure organisation is managed through process of change

Directs governance of suppliers

Monitor supplier payments

Arbitrates between stakeholders

Table 4: Sponsor activities with external focus


18

APM Sponsoring Change:

what the sponsor does

Prince2: responsibilities of the business

executive

MSP: responsibilities of the senior responsible

owner

Internal project focus

For the project manager

Provides timely decisions

Authorise expenditure and set tolerances

Provides overall direction and leadership

Clarifies decision making framework

Ensure coherent project organisation structure

Account for the programme's governance arrangements

Clarifies business priorities and strategy

Monitor changes to project plan against business needs

Communicates business issues

Inform project team of changes caused by a program

Address business needs and issues

Provides resources

Secure investments and funds required

Engenders trust

Manages relationships

Supports the project manager's role

Organise and chair project board meetings

Manage and support the programme manager

Promotes ethical working

Table 5: Sponsor activities with project focus

From the publications discussed we feel the APM publication best describes the activities of a sponsor. It

contains a comprehensive list that is more practical because it distinguishes between three categories of

sponsor activities (for the board, for other stakeholders and for the project manager). But the publications do

not discuss the link between the sponsor activities and (dimensions of) project success. Nor do they indicate

which activities are most important to achieve project success and which are of secondary importance. They

don't define what activities a sponsor should primarily focus on. We therefore address those points in our

research discussed in chapter 5 and further.

4.3 Sponsor characteristics Some of the activities discussed in paragraph 4.2 emphasize the more traditional view of a sponsor:

someone that owns the business case, provides financial resources and organizes a governance structure

for the project. But other activities also highlight aspects of the role more related to skills and attitude such as

stakeholder communication and maintaining an effective relationship with key stakeholders. The need for

'softer' skills in a sponsor is recognized by different authors in literature. Based on interviews with sponsors,

Hall et al. (2003) describe the role of public sector sponsors as a complex juggling act that requires

balancing different needs of multiple stakeholders and user groups while taking into account departmental

procedures, rules and regulations. They conclude these 'softer' cultural and attitudinal aspects are of great

importance to sponsors, as are their long term relationships with key stakeholders. Helm and Remington

(2005) researched and defined successful sponsor characteristics through interviews with different project


19

managers. Characteristics that were named frequently were seniority and power in the organization, political

knowledge, willingness to make connections between project and organization, ability to motivate,

communication skills and personal compatibility with other key stakeholders. It is fair to say that

communication and interacting with and influencing stakeholders is seen as an important characteristic of the

sponsor. Elaborating on this stakeholder notion, Mitchell et al. (1997) address the question how a manager

prioritizes between competing claims for attention from projects and other business activities. Mitchell et al.

suggest managers give priority to a certain stakeholder claim if they believe the stakeholder has a) a

legitimate claim, b) which calls for immediate action (it is perceived as urgent) and c) the stakeholder

possess the power to influence the organizations activities.

The Association of Project Management researched the role of the project sponsor and formulated the

personal attributes that an effective sponsor should possess. In their publication on sponsorship of change

(APM 2009) the APM recognizes five personal attributes (described in more detail in appendix A):

1. Understanding: the sponsor should understand the role, its significance and the project context.

2. Competence: he should have the knowledge, personal attributes and skills to fulfill the role including a

fair understanding of project management.

3. Credibility: he should be accepted by stakeholders as a suitable for the role and be able to influence

other stakeholders.

4. Commitment: he must give the role the personal time and priority necessary to fulfill its duties and

responsibilities

5. Engagement: must be willing to take personal ownership of the project and to ensure that effective

communications are in place and be able to influence people.

We conclude that recent years have shown an increased interest in the personal attributes of project

sponsors as a factor influencing project success. But there is little research available that prioritizes the

attributes, putting them in the context of key success factors in projects. We therefore incorporate personal

attributes in our research on the contribution of the project sponsor discussed in chapter 5 and further. We

use the attributes put forward by the APM (2009) as a starting point since it contains the most

comprehensive list of attributes we found.


20

5 The Delphi expert method

In this chapter we discuss the Delphi research method that we used in our research. We explain why we use

this method in paragraph 5.1 and give background on the Delphi expert method in paragraph 5.2. The last

paragraph of this chapter discusses how we apply Delphi to our research (paragraph 5.3).

5.1 Reasons for using Delphi The literature on project success and sponsorship discussed in chapters 3 and 4 is based on research in

multiple sectors and is therefore not specifically targeted at the public sector. We use the Delphi expert

method to adapt the general framework for project success of paragraph 3.3 to the Dutch public sector. A

second reason we use Delphi is because the contribution of the sponsor to critical success factors (as

illustrated in the model in Figure 8) is as yet undetermined. We apply the Delphi method to research both

aspects.

A standard work on the Delphi method is given by Linstone and Thuroff (2002). They indicate “it is the

particular circumstances surrounding the necessarily associated communication process which determines

the appropriateness of utilizing Delhi. Who is it that should communicate about the problem, what alternative

mechanisms are available for that communication, and what can we expect to obtain with these

alternatives?” They indicate one or more of the following characteristics usually lead to the application of

Delphi:

• The problem does not lend itself to precise analytical techniques but can benefit from subjective

judgments on a collective basis.

• More individuals are needed than can effectively interact in a face-to-face exchange.

• Time and cost make frequent group meetings infeasible.

• The heterogeneity of the participants must be preserved to assure validity of the results, i.e., avoidance

of domination by quantity or by strength of personality ("bandwagon effect").

• The individuals needed to contribute to the examination of a broad or complex problem have no history

of adequate communication and may represent diverse backgrounds with respect to experience or

expertise.

• The efficiency of face-to-face meetings can be increased by a supplemental group communication

process.

• Disagreements among individuals are so severe or politically unpalatable that the communication

process must be refereed and/or anonymity assured.

The first three points are in particular applicable to and relevant for our research.

5.2 Background and characteristics of the Delphi me thod The Delphi concept was formulated at the US RAND Corporation in the 1950’s and can be seen as a spin-off

of defense research. The objective of the original project was: “to obtain the most reliable consensus of

opinion of a group of experts ... by a series of intensive questionnaires interspersed with controlled opinion

feedback”. The project used the expert opinion to develop potential military strategies Soviet planners might

use to attack the USA. The reason for applying expert opinion was that accurate information on Soviet

military strategies was unavailable or very difficult to obtain and assessing different strategic options required

a great deal of subjective assessment. These two elements (lack and cost of accurate information,

domination of subjective aspects) are important drivers still today for applying Delphi to a particular problem.

From its first application in the defense industry, the method has spread to other industries and other areas

of application. Linstone and Thuroff (2002) mention application of the method in the following areas:


21

• Gathering current and historical data not accurately know or available.

• Examining the significance of historical events.

• Evaluating possible budget allocations.

• Exploring urban and regional planning options.

• Putting together the structure of a model.

• Developing causal relationships in complex economic or social phenomena.

• Distinguishing and clarifying real and perceived human motivations.

• Exposing priorities of personal values, social goals.

It is clear Delphi is being applied to a wide range of problems and in multiple industries or areas. Linstone

and Thuroff conclude there is no such thing as a standard Delphi, which makes it difficult to give a sound

definition. Therefore, they give a general definition: Delphi may be characterized as a method for structuring

a group communications process, so that the process is effective in allowing a group of individuals, as a

whole, to deal with a complex problem. To accomplish this ‘structured communication’ the following elements

are usually part of a Delphi research:

• Feedback tot participants on individual contributions of information and knowledge.

• Assessment of the group judgment or view.

• Opportunity for individuals to revise views.

• Some degree of anonymity for the individual responses.

Traditionally Delphi involves a facilitator or monitor team that designs a questionnaire which is sent to a

group of participants. The facilitator receives the responses for analysis and summarizes the results. Based

on the results, the facilitator develops a new questionnaire that is sent out to the participants together with a

summary of the previous results. Respondents are usually given the option to revise or adapt their answers

from previous questionnaires. The underlying idea is that sharing views and information among participants

may lead to a convergence of the views on the problem or issue at hand. In such a Delphi exercise there are

usually different phases visible. First, the subject under discussion is explored where participants contribute

information they feel is relevant. The next phase is aimed at reaching a shared understanding of the

different views that have been brought forward and assessing areas of agreement and disagreement. If

there is significant disagreement then this is explored further in the third phase. The last phase consists of a

final evaluation after all contributions have been shared, analyzed en fed back to participants for

consideration.

Linstone and Thuroff (2002) warn that Delphi may seem like a simple concept to use but that some common

reasons for failure need to be avoided:

• Imposing the facilitators' view and preconceptions of a problem upon the respondents by over

specifying the structure of the Delphi and not allowing for the contribution of other perspectives.

• Assuming Delphi can be a surrogate for all other human communications in a give situation.

• Poor techniques of summarizing and presenting the group response.

• Ignoring and not exploring disagreements so that discouraged dissenters drop out and an artificial

consensus is reached.

• Underestimating the time and effort needed by all involved for a successful Delphi.

5.3 Design and application of Delphi to our researc h For our research into the role of the project sponsor in successful projects, we use a Delphi survey

consisting on three rounds. This approach balances the time needed from participants with the level of

agreement of results and the timing constraints of the research itself. The first two rounds are traditional

Delphi rounds in which we use questionnaires to gather and exchange information between individual


22

respondents. Round one researches critical success factors and the contribution of the sponsor in Dutch

public sector projects. Round 2 focuses on personal attributes of the project sponsor and allows

respondents to give feedback on or revise results from the first round. The third round consists of a

workshop with all respondents to discuss results from the first two rounds and allows participants to give

feedback on round 2 results. After the third round we conclude on the results for which there is a sufficient

level of consensus among participants. For our research we define a sufficient level of consensus on the

success factors of our framework if:

• All respondents have had the opportunity to give feedback on a particular aspect.

• At least half of the respondents agree on that particular aspect (>=5).

• More respondents agree than disagree on a particular aspect.

The summary of the approach of the Delphi survey is illustrated in Figure 9.

Round One• Survey on

Critical Success Factors• Survey on contribution

of the project sponsor• Form: questionnaire

Round One• Survey on

Critical Success Factors• Survey on contribution

of the project sponsor• Form: questionnaire

Round Three• Feedback on results

from round two• Discuss results from

Round one and two• Form: group session

Round Three• Feedback on results

from round two• Discuss results from

Round one and two• Form: group session

Round Two• Feedback on results

from round one• Survey on personal

attributes of the sponsor

• Form: questionnaire

Round Two• Feedback on results

from round one• Survey on personal

attributes of the sponsor

• Form: questionnaire

Consensusresults

Figure 9: Approach of the Delphi survey

Background and profile of respondents

It is important that the respondents participating in our research have the relevant knowledge and

experience to serve as experts in the field of project success and sponsorship in the Dutch public sector.

The respondents should fit the following criteria:

• At least 4 years of project management experience in the Dutch public sector.

• At least 10 years of project management experience overall.

The survey was sent to 14 respondents that fit this profile of which 11 actually completed the survey.

Round 1

What factors are critical for achieving success in Dutch public sector projects? And what is the contribution

of the project sponsor to these critical success factors? Those are the central questions in round one of the

survey. The questionnaire for this round is given in appendix B and consists of two parts. The first part

contains the questions on the project management dimension of the Cooke-Davies framework discussed in

paragraph 3.3. The second part contains the questions on the project business dimension of the same

model. We use the results from the survey to adapt the framework for application in the Dutch public sector

(to answer research question 3). The questionnaire invites participants to review, discard factors from and

add to the Cooke–Davies model. It invites participants to comment on their responses. This provides the

input to analyze the critical success factors for which there is a sufficient level of agreement among

respondents. The round one survey also contains questions to determine the opinion of respondents on the

contribution of the project sponsor to the critical success factors (research question 4). For these questions

we use a five point Likert scale to indicate the answers on, ranging from low (value=1) to high (value=5)

contribution.

Level of contribution Value

Low 1

Medium-low 2


23

Medium 3

High-medium 4

High 5

The results on the contribution of the sponsor are analyzed by calculating the average score of the

responses. The highest and lowest scores are given as a measure of the level of agreement between

respondents on the contribution of the sponsor.

Round 2

The main goal of round 2 is to give respondents the possibility to comment on the results from round 1 of the

survey. It also presents participants questions to survey the opinions of respondents on the personal

attributes of the project sponsor. The questionnaire for this round is given in appendix C. Respondents are

presented with a list of sponsor attributes discussed in paragraph 4.3 and given in more detail in appendix

A. Out of this list, respondents are requested to indicate the eight attributes they consider most relevant and

important for a sponsor in the Dutch public sector. Respondents also have the option to add attributes to the

list if they feel important attributes are missing from the list. Round 2 survey presents respondents with a

summary of results from round 1 and gives the opportunity to react on those results. This way, the experts

are invited to take notion of and react on each others responses increasing the level of shared

understanding of the results.

Round 3

The third round of the Delphi survey consists of a group session with the participants to present and discuss

results from the previous rounds. Participants can clarify their own viewpoints and react on others. The main

goal of round 3 is to give respondents the possibility to comment on the results from round 2 of the survey.

During the group session, changes to the results of round two that participants agree on, are recorded after

round 3 we formulate the end results for which there is consensus among participants, incorporating the

possible changes agreed in round 3.


24

6 Results of the Delphi survey

In this chapter we present and discuss the results of the Delphi survey that we defined in paragraph 5.3. In

line with the structure of this thesis and its research questions we first discuss the critical success factors for

public sector projects (research question 3). Next, we focus on the sponsor discussing his contribution to

project success and the personal attributes needed in this role (research question 4).

6.1 Critical success factors for Dutch public secto r projects Research into the critical success factors is the focus point of round 1 of the Delphi survey. Out of 14

questionnaires sent to the expert group in round 1, we received 11 responses all of which were usable.

Respondents had the option to review and revise the results of the first Delphi round in rounds two and

three. These last two rounds reconfirmed round one results. No results were revised or discarded in rounds

two and three. Following the Cooke-Davies framework, the survey distinguishes between project

management success and project business success as illustrated in Figure 10. We discuss the results from

our research for each separately and summarize at the end of the paragraph.

ProjectManagement

Success

impact





satisfaction


Figure 10: The Cooke-Davies framework for project success

6.1.1 Project management success As a first step in interpreting the responses, we clustered similar suggestions for new critical success factors.

Table 6 gives an overview of both the total number of new factors suggested by respondents before

clustering similar suggestions and the number of factors after clustering. The clustered results are

categorized by the number of respondents that suggested a particular factor.

Suggested critical success factors Value

1. Total number of new factors suggested 33

2. Number of new factors after clustering similar results

New factors suggested by 5 or more respondents 3

New factors suggested by 4 or less respondents 12

Table 6: Number of CSF's suggested by respondents for project management success

Next, we reviewed the summarized (clustered) results against the original Cooke-Davies framework to see if

there were new factors added that were already present in the original model. This was the case with one

suggested factor 'clear business requirements' that is included in the original factor ‘clear project goals’. We

decided to emphasize ‘business requirements’ in our results by rephrasing the original factor to ‘clear project

goals and business requirements’. As a third step we discarded new factors if they were not suggested by at

least 5 respondents, because of lack of agreement (defined in paragraph 5.3). These factors that were


25

discarded have been discussed with respondents in the third Delphi round but this didn't change results.

After this step, three project management success factors remain to add to the framework:

• Factor 1: Business case review .

At the milestones defined for the project, the business case is reviewed to assess if the project is still

viable and on track to help realize the anticipated business benefits against reasonable cost. Only after

a positive decision the project progresses to the next phase.

This success factor is suggested as critical by 5 respondents. They indicate business case review helps to

ensure that only viable projects progress to the next phase. It creates more focus on and attention for the

viable projects giving them a better chance for success.

• Factor 2: Effective communication and stakeholder ma nagement.

Establish effective communication and conflict resolution methods. Establish and maintain active

commitment to the success of the project and its mission on the part of all significant stakeholder

groups, such as sponsors, policymakers, clients, owners, operations management, parent company,

suppliers, and so on.

This factor was suggested by 9 respondents, indicating a broad consensus. Responses show that the

commitment of the key stakeholders is vital for delivering the quality required. Stakeholders should amongst

others define and reach agreement on the business requirements for the project. This is not possible without

effective communication and stakeholder management. If issues arise on product quality this often leads to

delay and extra cost because of rework necessary to enhance the quality. In the original framework, this

factor was already present in the project business success dimension but respondents indicate it is also

critical for the project management success dimension.

• Factor 3: Effective project governance

Define the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders involved in the project and make sure

these are understood and acted upon. Organize sufficient decision making power in balance with the

power and influence of the different stakeholders involved. Define criteria for reporting project status

and agree an escalation process for issues to the levels required in the organization.

The factor of project governance is suggested by 6 respondents and defines the formal part of rules and

agreements between stakeholders involved. It gives clarity on who does what in the project and ensures

decisions are made timely and with sufficient power and support.

Respondents also indicated that performance requirements are not critical success factors but that an

effective change management process is critical and should receive more attention. Both aspects are

included in the original factor ‘clarity about technical performance requirements’. This factor is therefore

rephrased in the adapted framework to ‘Effective change management’ leaving out the performance

requirements.

6.1.2 Project business success We applied the same steps discussed above for project management success to analyze results on the

project business success dimension:

• Cluster similar suggestions for new critical success factors into one summarized factor

• Remove overlap with the original model

• Discard factors suggested by 4 or less respondents.


26

Table 7 gives an overview of both the total number of new factors suggested by respondents before

clustering similar suggestions and the number of factors after clustering. The clustered results are

categorized by the number of respondents that suggested a particular factor.

Suggested critical success factors Value

1. Total number of new factors suggested 14

2. Number of new factors after clustering similar results

New factors suggested by 5 or more respondents 1

New factors suggested by 4 or less respondents 9

Table 7: Number of CSF's suggested by respondents for project business success

Five responses indicated effective communication as a critical factor that should be made more explicit. In

the original model, communication is part of the factor 'stakeholder commitment and attitude' so it is not a

new factor. To emphasize communication we rephrased the factor to 'Effective communication and

stakeholder management'. In the adapted model this factor is now seen as critical for both project

management and project business success. There were no other factors with a sufficient level of consensus

(>= 5 responses) and the respondents indicated no factors as non critical.

6.1.3 The adapted versus the original critical success factor s Based on the results discussed in this paragraph the adapted public sector critical success factors are

formulated in the tables below. Table 8 contains the factors for the project management dimension and Table

9 for the project business dimension. For every critical success factor, both the adapted and the original

factors are given, together with a brief description of the changes between the two. If a critical success factor

has remained unchanged, the full description is given only in the column with the adapted factors.

Adapted critical success factors for

project management success

Original critical success factors for

project management success

Type of

change

Clear project goals and business requirements

Achieve and maintain clarity about the goals of the

project. Define the project in a way that clarifies

both the goals of the project and the needs of

stakeholders. Minimize changes to the goals once

the project has started

Clear project goals

Achieve and maintain clarity about

the goals of the project. Define the

project in a way that clarifies both the

goals of the project and the needs of

stakeholders. Minimize changes to

the goals once the project has

started.

Title only

Well selected, capable and effective project

team

Select and assemble a capable project team of

task-oriented individuals, led by a competent

leader. Ensure that the team contains the right

capabilities, is appropriately structured,

communicates well, and has good processes for

teamwork, problem solving, and decision making

Well selected, capable and

effective project team

Unchanged

Adequate (sufficient) resourcing

Ensure that the project is resourced adequately to

the project scope and objectives. Mobilize top

management support and ensure that there is

adequate support from the organization and

effective project administration

Adequate (sufficient) resourcing Unchanged


27

Effective change management process

Establish from the start a clear and effective

change management process and procedure.

Ensure the impact of change requests is

determined transparently and efficiently and

available to key stakeholders for decision making

Clarity about technical

performance requirements

Establish clarity at the outset about

the technical performance required

from the product and manage the

scope of work tightly, using a mature

change management process

Technical

performance

requirements

discarded

Effective planning & control

Plan meticulously, using well-established

estimating procedures, and to a sufficient level of

detail to allow effective monitoring and control.

Maintain excellent metrics that relate the technical

content of work done to the elapsed time and

expenditure incurred.

Effective planning & control Unchanged

Good risk management

Employ established risk management practices

that are well understood by all project participants,

including effective risk response development and

control.

Good risk management Unchanged

Business case review

Ensure the business case is reviewed at the

milestones defined for the project. Assess if the

project is still viable and on track to help realize

the anticipated business benefits against

reasonable cost. Only after a positive decision the

project progresses to the next phase

- Added

Effective communication and stakeholder

management

Establish effective communication and conflict

resolution methods. Establish and maintain active

commitment to the success of the project and its

mission on the part of all significant stakeholder

groups, such as sponsors, policymakers, clients,

owners, operations management, parent

company, suppliers, and so on

- Added

Effective project governance

Define the roles and responsibilities of the

different stakeholders involved in the project and

make sure these are understood and acted upon.

Organize sufficient decision making power in

balance with the power and influence of the

different stakeholders involved. Define criteria for

reporting project status and agree an escalation

process for issues to the levels required in the

organization.

- Added

Table 8: Public sector adapted and original critical success factors for the project management dimension


28

Adapted critical success factors for

project business success

Original critical success factors for

project business success

Type of

change

Clear project goals and business requirements

Achieve and maintain clarity about the goals of the

project. Define the project in a way that clarifies

both the goals of the project and the needs of

stakeholders. Minimize changes to the goals once

the project has started

Clear project goals

Achieve and maintain clarity about the

goals of the project. Define the project

in a way that clarifies both the goals of

the project and the needs of

stakeholders. Minimize changes to the

goals once the project has started.

Title only

Effective communication and stakeholder

management

Establish and maintain active commitment to the

success of the project and its mission on the part

of all significant stakeholder groups, such as

sponsors, policymakers, clients, owners,

operations management, parent company,

suppliers, and so on. Establish effective

communication and conflict resolution methods.

Stakeholder commitment and

attitude

Establish and maintain active

commitment to the success of the

project and its mission on the part of all

significant stakeholder groups, such as

sponsors, clients, owners, operations

management, parent company,

suppliers, and so on. Establish

effective communication and conflict

resolution methods

Title only

Effective benefit management and realization

processes

Develop and sustain effective processes during

the project and after completion to deliver the

anticipated benefits of the project and ensure that

they are realized. Ensure that a close link is

developed and maintained between anticipated

benefits, the business case for the project, and the


Effective benefit management and

realization processes

Unchanged

Appropriate project strategy

Develop a project strategy, or ‘‘trajectory’’ in the

words of Miller and Hobbs (2000), that is

appropriate to the unique environment and

circumstances of the project. (Trajectory is a term

that encompasses both strategy and life cycle

model, and is derived from a detailed study of 60

megaprojects.)


Unchanged

Table 9: Public sector adapted and original critical success factors for the project business dimension

6.1.4 Implications of results for practice The results show general support that effective communication and stakeholder management is not only

critical for achieving business success but also for project management success in the Dutch public sector.

Based on the work of Mitchell et al. (1997) discussed in paragraph 4.3, stakeholder management is effective

if stakeholders perceive the project and its goals as legitimate and urgent and with a sufficient level of power

behind the project. These activities therefore need to be secured in every project and should be on every

project managers agenda.


29

There is also a sufficient level of consensus that activities to define, implement and sustain effective project

governance are crucial for project management success. Projects with an unclear or ineffective governance

framework run a higher risk on delays, budget overrun and/or poor product quality.

The final implication is on business case review. Although the business case is generally associated with the

business dimension, results show it is also critical for delivering project results on time, to budget and against

sufficient level of quality. One explanation may be that if a project is not or no longer viable, stakeholders

may no longer perceive the project as urgent or even legitimate. Referring again to the work of Mitchell et al.

stakeholders may then lose their support and commitment for the project and turn their attention to other

issues. This impacts both the project and the business dimension. Reviewing the business case at

milestones and terminating a project if it is no longer viable can prevent this loss of interest.

6.2 Contribution of the sponsor In this paragraph we discuss the results on the contribution of the sponsor to the success factors of the

adapted framework of paragraph 6.1. Critical success factors are defined in chapter 2 as areas of activity.

The contribution of the sponsor to the success factors can therefore be seen as activities performed by or

under responsibility of the project sponsor. Respondents were asked to indicate the contribution on a five

point scale ranging from 1 to 5. A value of 1 indicates a low contribution, a value of 5 indicates a high

contribution. Results of Delphi round one were reconfirmed by respondents in rounds two and three. No

round one results were revised or discarded in later rounds.

6.2.1 Project management success Table 10 presents the average scores for the contribution of the sponsor on the dimension of project

management success. It also gives the highest and lowest scores of responses for each factor. The factors

are ranked in descending order of contribution which indicates that the contribution of the sponsor to the

factor business case review is considered the highest and to effective planning and effective change

management process the lowest. However, the factor effective change management process was part of the

original factor technical performance requirements that we rephrased based on results of the Delphi survey.

It may therefore be that the aspect of technical performance requirements is included by some respondents

in their answer on the contribution of the project sponsor. The contribution of the sponsor on the factor

effective change management should therefore be interpreted with some caution.

Critical Success Factor Contribution

(average) Highest score

Lowest score

Business Case review 5,0 5 5 Set clear project goals & business requirements 4,9 5 4 Effective communication & stakeholder management 4,7 5 3 Effective project governance 4,6 5 3 Good risk management 4,0 5 2 Adequate (sufficient) resourcing 3,8 5 3 Well selected, capable and effective project team 3,5 5 2 Effective planning & control 3,0 4 2 Effective change management process (3,0) (4) (2)

Table 10: Contribution of the sponsor to project management critical success factors

The range between highest and lowest scores of respondents is lowest on the factors Business case review

and clear project goals & business requirements. The level of agreement amongst respondents on the

contribution of the sponsor appears to be high on these factors. The range between scores is highest on the

factors good risk management and well selected, capable and effective project team. This indicates a lower

level of agreement between respondents on the contribution of the sponsor in those two factors.


30

Implications for practice

The results show medium to general agreement that to realise project management success, a project

sponsor in the Dutch public sector should primarily focus on activities to:





4. Implement and maintain effective project governance

There is also general consensus amongst respondents that the following activities are of secondary

importance for the project sponsor:

1. Ensuring adequate (sufficient) resourcing. An explanation may be that in most projects there are

resources needed from different (parts of) organizations that fall outside of the direct hierarchical

responsibility of the project sponsor. Organizations often have a separate role responsible for the

allocation of resources to projects. The project management method Prince2, for instance therefore

defines a separate role (the senior supplier) responsible for project resourcing.



There is less agreement between respondents if the sponsor should play an important role in establishing

and employing good risk management practices for the project and in selecting a capable and effective

project team. Further research is needed to clarify the role of the sponsor with regard to these aspects.

6.2.2 Project business success Table 11 presents the average scores for the contribution of the sponsor on the dimension of project

business success and the highest and lowest scores of responses. The factors are again ranked in

descending order of contribution which indicates that the contribution of the sponsor to the factor clear

project goal" is considered the highest and to appropriate project strategy the lowest.



Lowest score

Clear project goals & business requirements 4,8 5 5 Effective communication & stakeholder management 4,8 5 4 Effective benefit management and realization processes 4,1 5 3 Appropriate project strategy 3,5 5 2

Table 11: Contribution of the sponsor to project business critical success factors

The range between highest and lowest scores of respondents is lowest on the factors clear project goals &

business requirements and effective communication & stakeholder management. The level of agreement

amongst respondents on the contribution of the sponsor appears to be high on these factors. The range of

scores is higher on effective benefit management and appropriate project strategy. The level of agreement

appears to be lower on the contribution of the sponsor to these two factors.

Implications for practice

The results show general agreement that to realise project business success, a project sponsor in the Dutch

public sector should primarily focus on activities to:




31


There is agreement that the following activities are of secondary importance for the project sponsor:


All the key activities of a project sponsor resulting from our research are also included in the APM list of

sponsor activities discussed in paragraph 4.2. We can now conclude the APM (2009) also suggests sponsor

activities not considered critical for project success by our research. Examples include promoting ethical

working, engendering trust with the project team and providing leadership on culture and values.

6.3 Personal sponsor attributes The second round of our Delphi survey contains survey questions on the personal attributes of a successful

project sponsor. Respondents were asked to indicate the most important sponsor attributes. As a basis we

used the list of attributes published by the Association of Project Management (2009) that we discussed in

paragraph 4.3. It is given in more detail in appendix A and contains the following five categories of attributes:

1. Understanding: the sponsor should understand the role, its significance and the project context.

2. Competence: he should have the knowledge, personal attributes and skills to fulfill the role including a

fair understanding of project management.

3. Credibility: he should be accepted by stakeholders as a suitable for the role and be able to influence

other stakeholders.

4. Commitment: he must give the role the personal time and priority necessary to fulfill its duties and

responsibilities

5. Engagement: must be willing to take personal ownership of the project and to ensure that effective

communications are in place and be able to influence people.

The questionnaire was sent to the same 11 respondents that participated in the first round of the survey. The

eight personal attributes that were mentioned most frequently by respondents as being important for

sponsors are given in Table 12. The last column indicates the number of respondents that mentioned that

particular attribute.

Personal attribute of the project sponso r No. references

1. Has the ability to influence internal and external stakeholders 8

2. Capable to align the project with the interest of the organization 8

3. Provides clarity of direction 7

4. Appreciate how the project contributes to the corporate (public

sector) strategy

6

5. Is motivated to act in the long term interest of the organization 5

6. Feels ultimate accountable for the success or failure of the project 3

7. Makes effective decisions and takes decisive action when necessary 3

8. Understand the sponsorship role 3

Table 12: Main personal attributes of a project sponsor in the Dutch public sector

Respondents indicated sponsor attributes 4, 6 and 7 in Table 12 as having the most potential (or need) for

improvement in the Dutch public sector. In our survey, we did not further research the relations between

individual sponsor attributes and critical success factors. This may be a suggestion for future research. The

results on the personal attributes of a sponsor were reconfirmed by respondents in round three. No attributes

were revised or discarded in round three.


32

6.4 Implications of results for stakeholders The results discussed in this chapter are first and foremost of interest to current and future sponsors of

projects in the Dutch public sector. They can use the prioritized contribution of the sponsor to critical success

factors discussed in paragraph 6.2 to focus their own activities in sponsoring projects. We hope this will help

sponsors be more effective and focus on what matters most. The sponsor attributes discussed and ranked in

paragraph 6.3 can be used by senior management to select and appoint a sponsor that is fit and competent

to fulfil this roll. Both aspects can also be of use in training and coaching on project sponsorship. Project

managers and other stakeholders can benefit from the results on the elaborated role of the sponsor because

it gives them more clarity on what they can expect from a project sponsor. They can use this insight to for

instance support the sponsor in his activities for the project.


33

7 Validation and limitations of results

In this chapter we validate our results by comparing them against findings from actual projects carried out in

the Dutch public sector. The goal is to validate if our results actually match issues encountered in real life

projects. We use different recent audit and review reports on Dutch public sector projects as a source for the

issues and success factors encountered in these projects. We first focus on validation of the critical success

factors in paragraph 7.1 and discuss the contribution of the sponsor in paragraph 7.2 that includes a case

study on a project performed in the Dutch public sector. In paragraph 7.3 we discuss limitations of our

research.

7.1 Validation of critical success factors To validate the critical success factors identified in our research, we mapped these factors to the issues and

fail factors reported in audits and reviews on projects in the Dutch public sector. The purpose is to research if

all issues mentioned in these reviews can be traced to at least one critical success factor and vice versa.

First, we compile a list of issues encountered in public sector projects using three recent audit and review

reports that we also discussed in paragraph 2.1:

1. The gateway review report by Docters van Leeuwen et al. (2009) on the NUP program for e-Government

2. The report of the Dutch government accountability office on causes for failure of major governmental IT

projects (2007)

3. A case study on causes for delay and low adoption of two major projects (WABO an XBRL) to reduce

administrative burdens (Janssen, van Veenstra et al. 2010).

We selected these reports because they result from independent researchers not associated with the

projects that were reviewed. But also because they are recent and represent a broad scope of projects. In

Table 13 we summarize the issues and fail factors from these reports.

Issues reported in the

NUP gateway review

Issues reported by the Government accountability

office

Issues reported in the case study of administrative

burden reduction

N1. Interdependencies among deliverables of projects are lacking

G1. IT is seen as a quick fix for nearly all problems in the public sector

W1. Frequent changes to the juridical context lead to rework and uncertainty among stakeholders

N2. Contribution of users is insufficient in all project phases

G2. Key stakeholders (e.g. Policy makers) overestimate technological possibilities

W2. Delay reduces stakeholder commitment

N3. Key stakeholders (BZK, VNG) act reactive

G3. Key stakeholders underestimate resources needed for projects

W3. No clear business case with sufficient level of detail

N4. There is a lack of decision and implementation power

G4. Sponsor involves insufficient IT expertise in decisions

W4. Impact on systems of user organizations is underestimated

N5. There is a lack of coordination between projects

G5. The project does not have a business case

W5. Some stakeholders have insufficient user participation

N6. Business has no shared vision on the scope an content of services to be implemented

G6. Sponsor sets unrealistic deadlines

W6. Level of ambition keeps changing during the project

N7. Too much focus on IT and too little on organizational aspects

G7. Project goals are unclear or insufficiently detailed

W7. Lack of IT expertise in the project


34

N8. Sponsors and key stakeholders lack capabilities to direct projects

G8. Project viability and approach are not reviewed when major changes occur

X1. No clear business case with sufficient level of detail

G9. Risks are ignored during decision making

X2. High level of new technology has increased the risk profile leading to delay

G10. Project is not terminated when it is no longer viable.

X3. Insufficient support among users for the XBRL standard

G11. There is a lack of central control and decision power

X4. Products have not been properly implemented in the user and supporting organizations

G12. The organizational impact of projects is underestimated

X5. Lack of user involvement in the project

G13. Users are not sufficiently involved in the project

X6. Lack of control and decision making by the sponsor

G14. Project requirements are unclear (to vendors)

X7. Users and support organizations were not ready for implementation

N9. Insufficient resourcing and capabilities to support implementation in the business

G15. Insufficient expertise available because of the speed of technology development

X8. Lack of expertise in XBRL standard

Table 13: Summary of issues from independent public sector project reviews

Next, we mapped the critical success factors identified in our research to the issues listed in Table 13. The

result is given in Table 14 below.

Critical success factors Identification of the reported issues

1 Clear project goals and business requirements W1, W3, W5, X5, G1, G7, G14, N2, N6

2 Well selected, capable and effective project team W7, X8, G15

3 Adequate (sufficient) resourcing W7, G3, N9

4 Effective change management process W1

5 Effective planning & control G3, G6, N5, N9

6 Good risk management X2, G2, G9

7 Business case review W3, X1, G1, G5, G8, G10

8 Effective communication and stakeholder management W1, W2, X7, N3, N5, N8

9 Effective project governance X6, G2, G4, G10, G11, G12, N1, N2, N3, N4, N5, N8

10 Effective benefit management and realization processes W4. W5, X3, X4, X5, X7, G12, G13, N2, N9

11 Appropriate project strategy W6, X1, G1, G4, G8, N6, N7

Table 14: Mapping of critical success factors to reported issues


35

The table shows that all of the critical success factors including the factors added in our research are

apparent as issues in the three review reports we studied. It also shows there are no issues mentioned in

these reports that could not be mapped to one or more of the critical success factors. This gives some

evidence the critical success factors we identified during our research are indeed relevant for projects in the

Dutch public sector.

7.2 Validation of the contribution of the project s ponsor to critical success

factors The review reports we used in paragraph 7.1 to validate the critical success factors only contain general

descriptions on the activities of the project sponsor. Moreover, they do not discuss which activities are most

important for a project sponsor in light of project success. They can therefore not be used effectively to

validate our results on the contribution of the project sponsor. To validate our results we therefore performed

a case study one a project in the Dutch public sector focusing on the role of the project sponsor. It is

discussed in the next paragraph.

7.2.1 A case study in the Dutch public sector To further validate the results of our research we performed a case study on an actual project realized in the

Dutch public sector. The purpose of the case study is to determine if our results are not contradicted by

findings in practice. The case study therefore addresses the different aspects contained in our adapted

framework on project success:

• Is the project successful in terms of the criteria time, cost, quality, benefits realized and satisfaction?

• What is the status of the critical success factors in the project?

• What has been the contribution of the sponsor in the project?

Based on these aspects we discuss if the level of project success can be explained by our findings on the

critical success factors and the role of the sponsor. We also assess if all important issues found in the project

are related to the critical success factors. To assess the main issues encountered in the project we held

interviews with key stakeholders (project board, supplier, project management) and studied documents in the

project administration (project plans, progress reports, change requests, risk documents, etc.).

Description of the project

The case study is performed on a recent project in the Dutch public sector that was initiated to replace an

existing transaction processing system for a new architecture. The project should create the new system and

implement it in the organization of the sponsoring department and its customers. The project therefore

consists of both an IT component and an organization (process) change component to migrate customers

and users to the new system. The system processes millions of transactions between multiple organizations.

It is an important product in the portfolio of the department sponsoring the project. The project was carried

out in three phases illustrated in Figure 11 below. The business requirements for the new architecture are

generated in the definition phase and form the basis for creating a design for the new architecture and

changed processes and organization. Based on the design for the new system a tender is started in the

sourcing phase to select a supplier capable and suitable to build the new system. The sourcing phase ends

with the closure of a contract with the supplier selected to build the new system. This supplier works together

with the sponsoring department during the realization phase. They build and test the new system, migrate

existing customers and adapt the existing processes for support and maintenance to suit the new system

and the cooperation with the new supplier.


36

Definition Phase• High level design• Business requirements

Definition Phase• High level design• Business requirements

Realization Phase• Build new system• Migrate existing

customers• Adapt processes

for support and maintenance

Realization Phase• Build new system• Migrate existing

customers• Adapt processes

for support and maintenance

Sourcing Phase• Tendering• Contracting

Sourcing Phase• Tendering• Contracting

Figure 11: project phases

Success criteria

The project has run into significant delay of approximately four months in the realization and migration

phase. This has resulted in a budget overrun for both the sponsoring organization and the supplier. The

initial system was delivered against a lower quality than planned. The delay has had impact on the

sponsoring organization and its customers and stakeholder satisfaction of the project is therefore low. The

project is not considered a success.

Main findings and issues – success factors and spon sor involvement

We first made a list of questions to address during the interviews with key stakeholders and for the

assessment of project documentation. The questions are given in the first column of appendix D and are

categorized by the critical success factors. The second column presents the findings and issues from the

interviews and assessment of the project documentation. The main findings and issues are discussed below,

categorized by the critical success factors of the adapted framework we presented in paragraph 6.1.

1. Effective project governance, stakeholder management and communication

A first issue is that there was no joined project board at the start of realization (including sponsor and

supplier). A joined project board was not formed until four months after the start of the phase while the

target was to complete the phase in eight months. A second point is that the supplier was in an internal

reorganization to integrate separate departments, their people and processes. This has impacted the

internal (project) governance structure of the supplier and its stakeholder management and

communication processes. For the sponsoring organization it was therefore unclear at times who was

ultimately responsible for the project at the side of the supplier. Moreover, it was unclear if anyone at the

supplier had the mandate and power to do what was required to put the supplier project on track

(allocate necessary resources, ensure commitment, define responsibilities). For instance, decisions

taken in the joined steering board were not always communicated well to the project team. In effect,

there was insufficient decision making and decision implementation power available for the project,

especially in the beginning. This contributed to a slow start of realization and late delivery which proved

an important reason the project is not considered a success. The project sponsor was involved from the

start but could have been more effective in setting up a governance structure. A joined project board

should have been implemented from the start and roles, responsibilities, communication and escalation

structures should have been discussed, agreed and implemented properly. However, effective

implementation is also dependant on the supplier. It should also clearly allocate one person as ultimately

responsible for the supplier project with sufficient commitment, power and position in its internal

organization. This hasn't been the case and the supplier had up to four people present in the joined

project board that also changed during the project.

2. Effective planning and control

Although criteria for status reporting have been defined (in the supplier proposal) these have not all been

met in the progress reports delivered. Metrics that relate the actual work done to deliverables, work to

completion and overall progress have not been reported. These metrics could have been based on the


37

effort (hours) per deliverable but other metrics are also possible such as function points, lines of code or

other alternatives. A supplier should not only report if it is still on track to meet it's planning but also

report the underlying analysis based on facts (that is data and metrics). Without this it is difficult to

effectively control the realization and possible delays are signaled at a late stage. This is also what

happened during the realization phase: the delay was only signaled towards the planned end date. It is a

joined responsibility of the project manager and the project sponsor to request this information from a

supplier.

A similar issue is apparent in the planning. It took 5 months before a joined planning was delivered and

agreed between sponsoring organization and supplier. This may be influenced by the supplier

reorganization and governance issue mentioned above. But it may also be that the estimation and

planning process at the supplier is immature. The same metrics used for reporting can and should also

be used for planning. Both for initial planning and for planning change requests. The impact of change

requests was not communicated transparently or in sufficient detail during the project.

3. Adequate resourcing

The sponsoring organization underestimated the size and complexity of the project and didn't allocate

sufficient project management capacity in the beginning of the realization phase. This also contributed to

slow progress in the beginning of the project. Additional capacity was allocated after about three months.

At the side of the supplier there have been multiple changes in project management resourcing. These

changes have had a negative impact on progress. During realization it became apparent that the supplier

has very limited resources to develop the system. In effect there was a single person key for doing the

core development work. This showed for instance in the fact that impact analyses for changes could not

be delivered by the supplier. The lack of and changes to resourcing contributed to the delay.

Conclusions

The case shows important areas for improvement in project sponsorship, especially in the area of project

governance, communication and stakeholder management. It is in line with results from our research that

ineffective sponsorship in these areas has a negative impact on the success of a project. However, we can

not conclude from this case that effective sponsorship on these aspects would contribute to successful

projects. Simply because this is a case on a non successful project. Other cases should be studied to

validate if effective sponsorship in these areas is associated with successful projects. The case study also

shows that the critical success factors can effectively be used to pinpoint and analyze issues encountered in

this project. It thereby gives a better understanding of the areas of activity that need improvement in order to

be more successful. No relevant issues are found in this case that can not be linked to the critical success

factors which reconfirms the results of our research. A last point we want to mention is the importance of the

role of the supplier in this case. The main part of project work was performed by and in the organization of

the supplier. It suggests the supplier should appoint a single individual ultimately responsible for the project

at the supplier that serves as the counterpart for the project sponsor. This supplier role extents the sponsor

role into the supplier organization contributing to the critical success factors. Future research may be done to

extent our framework for project success to include the role of the supplier.

7.3 Limitations and evaluation In this chapter we discuss general limitations inherent to our research and limitations related to the Delphi

survey and to the validation.

General aspects

The research presented in this thesis is primarily based on the responses of the experts participating in the

Delphi survey. As Cooke-Davies (2004) already noted it is therefore best presented as research into the

opinions of respondents on project success. That is valuable but it can not be considered an absolute truth.


38

A related issue already noted in paragraph 3.1 is that the notion of project success is time dependant. This

implies that the perception of the level of success of a particular project changes over time. Success criteria

and success factors resulting from research and project reviews may therefore vary, depending on the

moment the research is conducted with respect to the project life cycle (for instance during, directly after or

long after project completion). This effect may also be present in our research and the literature we used for

our research.

Our research doesn't include situational or contingency factors other than the applicability to the Dutch public

sector. This should be held in mind when applying the framework in actual projects. For every project one

should first determine what aspects of the framework (success criteria, success factors and roles) are most

relevant for that project and where possible issues may arise. Our results are not intended as a one size fits

all.

Aspects related to the Delphi survey

The Delphi survey was sent to 14 experts on project and program management of which we received 11

responses. This fairly limited number of responses means the validity of results and conclusions need to be

interpreted with some caution. Because the perception of project success may differ between stakeholders it

would be worthwhile if future research were conducted with more respondents also representing a greater

variety of project roles (e.g. sponsor, users, project team members, other stakeholders). As a final aspect it

should be noted that the Delphi questionnaire has not been pretested. Certain questions or aspects of the

survey may not have been completely unambiguous which may have lead to lower consensus on some of

the results.

Aspects related to validation

There is little research available on the contribution of the project sponsor to project success as discussed in

this thesis: what activities are more important for sponsors to focus on than other activities? The lack of clear

material on these aspects makes it difficult to validate our findings on the contribution of the project sponsor

to critical success factors. We did find some support for our findings on the contribution of the project

sponsor in the case study but more research should be done to further validate these results.


39

8 Conclusions and recommendations

In this chapter we formulate the conclusions from our research. Following these conclusions we give some

practical recommendations and close the chapter by reflecting on the content and process of our research.

8.1 Conclusions The approach of our research is aimed at finding answers to the research questions formulated in paragraph

2.2:

1. What are the main findings in literature on the criteria defining project success and their success factors?

2. How is the role of the project sponsor in project success defined in literature?

3. What are critical success factors for projects in the Dutch public sector?

4. What is the contribution of the project sponsor to these critical success factors?

The first two questions are general questions on reviewing the current state of literature on project success

and the role of the project sponsor. We reviewed and discussed these aspects in chapter 3 and 4

respectively. Conclusions for the last two research questions are derived from the results of the Delphi

survey. We formulate a conclusion for each research question in the following paragraphs.

8.1.1 Conclusion 1 – findings from literature on project success criteria and success factors Based on the literature reviewed in chapter 3 it appears that project success criteria distinguish between two

categories. Criteria that apply to the success of project management and that include the criteria time, cost

and quality of deliverables. And secondly, criteria for the overall business related success of a project that

includes benefits realized and stakeholder satisfaction. These two categories of success criteria are also

reflected in the literature on success factors of projects. It distinguishes between success factors relating to

project management that may include clear project goals, accurate project planning and adequate resources.

And factors relating to the business success such as client acceptance and benefit management.

8.1.2 Conclusion 2 – literature findings on the role of the projec t sponsor in project success To define the role, literature discusses the definition of a project sponsor, its activities and personal

attributes. In our research we follow the definition of a sponsor as given by the Office of Government

Commerce (2005) because it stresses a sponsor has both a business focus and a project focus. A sponsor

is:

"The individual ultimately responsible for the project that ensures the project is focused on achieving its

objectives and delivering a product that will achieve the forecasted benefits".

The APM (2009) best describes the activities and personal characteristics of a sponsor. It contains a

comprehensive and practical list that distinguishes between three categories of sponsor activities: for the

board, for other stakeholders and for the project manager. Literature does not define however, which

sponsor activities and characteristics are most important for achieving project success and which are of

secondary importance. We therefore address prioritization of activities and characteristics in our research.

8.1.3 Conclusion 3 – critical success factors in the Dutch public sector Our third conclusion is directed at research question 3: what are critical success factors for projects in the

Dutch public sector? Eleven factors are found to be critical. These factors can be subdivided into two

dimensions of success:

• The project management dimension is measured against the criteria cost, time and quality of

deliverables and contains nine critical success factors.


40

• Project business success is measured against the business benefits realized with specific deliverables

and against the satisfaction of stakeholders involved in the project. It contains four critical success

factors.

Two out of the eleven success factors appear to be linked to both the project management and the project

business dimension. The resulting critical success factors are summarized and illustrated in Figure 12.

� Business case review� Effective project governance� Good risk management� Adequate resourcing� Well selected, capable and

effective project team � Effective planning & control� Effective change management process

� Effective benefit management andrealization processes



Impact

Project managementsuccess

� Benefits realized

� Stakeholdersatisfaction

Impact

Project businesssuccess

Critical success factors Success criteria

� Clear project goals and business requirements

� Effective communication and stakeholder management

Figure 12: Adapted critical success factors in the Dutch public sector

8.1.4 Conclusion 4 – contribution of the project sponsor to critica l success factors in the Dutch

public sector In this paragraph we formulate the conclusions with regard to research question 4: what is the contribution of

the project sponsor to the critical success factors? Success factors were defined in chapter 2 as areas of

activity. The contribution of the sponsor to the critical success factors can therefore be seen as key activities

performed by or under responsibility of the project sponsor. We formulate conclusions for the contribution of

the sponsor on the dimensions project management success and project business success.

Project management success

To effectively impact project management success, a project sponsor in the Dutch public sector should






4. Implement and maintain effective project governance.


1. Ensuring adequate (sufficient) resourcing. In most projects resources are needed from different (parts of)

organizations that fall outside of the direct hierarchical responsibility of the project sponsor. Often, there

is a separate organizational function responsible for planning and allocating resources.


41



Results show no real consensus if the sponsor should play an important role in establishing and employing

good risk management practices for the project. The same applies to the factor selecting a capable and

effective project team.

Project business success

To effectively impact project business success, a project sponsor in the Dutch public sector should primarily

focus on activities to:






Based on the results of our research we formulate the following eight personal attributes a sponsor needs

to effectively contribute to the success of a project:

1. The ability to influence internal and external stakeholders

2. Capability to align the project with the interest of the organization

3. Provides clarity of direction

4. Appreciate how the project contributes to the corporate (i.e. public sector) strategy

5. Feels ultimate accountable for the success or failure of the project

6. Makes effective decisions and takes decisive action when necessary

7. Understanding of the sponsorship role

8. Motivation to act in the long term interest of the organization

The research shows that the following three personal attributes have the highest potential (or need) for

improvement. These should get particular attention in training and selection of project sponsors in the Dutch

public sector.

1. Appreciate how the project contributes to the corporate (public sector) strategy

2. Feels ultimate accountable for the success or failure of the project

3. Makes effective decisions and takes decisive action when necessary

8.2 Recommendations Based on the results of our research we formulate the following recommendations.

1. Sponsors should use the adapted critical success fac tors as a scorecard to review projects at

major milestones.

Every project distinguishes at least one but usually multiple milestones where status is formally reported

to the project sponsor and / or steering committee (project board). Often, these milestones coincide with

the phases planned for the project and they require an explicit decision by the sponsor to progress to the

next phase (no-go / go decision). A scorecard consisting of the adapted critical success factors could be

used to give a quick and concise overview of the general status. It can be added to the existing

milestone reports to show if the project is still on track to a successful outcome. The scorecard could be

filled in by the project manager and reported to the sponsor. If needed, he sponsor can request a third

party to review the scorecard.


42

2. Project managers should include the adapted critical success factors in progress reports.

In their progress reports, project managers should assess and report any changes in the status of the

critical success factors. This may be part of the risk management section of a report as these changes

may lead to new issues or risks. The goal is to identify any issues and risks that may impact project

success as soon as possible and define potential measures.

3. Project sponsor and project manager should use the a dapted critical success factors when

defining and setting up a project.

In the first phase of a project, the critical success factors can be used to focus the attention of project

manager and sponsor on the key aspects that need to be organized. The success factors thereby serve

as a checklist to guide what needs to be done. Given the importance of stakeholder management,

project manager and sponsor can draw up a stakeholder map together.

4. Incorporate the concept of critical success factors and contribution of the sponsor in training

and coaching.

These aspects can provide guidance to potential sponsors defining which activities are effective in the

project context. It also helps to give more understanding of and consensus on the role of a sponsor.

Insight into the attributes of a sponsor can be used to improve those skills of sponsors that are most

effective in projects. The training should at first include aspects of stakeholder management and

communication, project governance, requirements management and benefit and business case

management.

5. Incorporate the concept of critical success factors and sponsorship in training and coaching of

project managers.

This can help project managers when discussing and defining their own role versus that of their sponsor.

It can be used by project managers to show sponsors the risks of not (fully) taking up their role.

8.3 Suggestions for future research The aim of our research is to contribute to the understanding of key aspects influencing success in public

sector projects. In this paragraph we give recommendations for future research on aspects that require

further study.

1. Extent the adapted model for project success to incl ude the contribution of other project roles.

Our framework for project success focuses on the role of the project sponsor. Future research can be

done to expand the framework to incorporate the contribution of other project roles to the critical success

factors. A likely candidate role to add is that of the project manager (illustrated in Figure 13). It can be

relevant to also research the cooperation and relation between the project manager and the sponsor and

its impact on project success. One suggestion is to determine if the combination of personal

characteristics of the sponsor and project manager impacts the level of success achieved in projects.

What combinations of the Belbin team roles (2010) for sponsor and project manager are for instance

most effective for project success? The case that we studied shows that the role of the supplier deserves

more attention and should also be added to the framework. In cases where the supplier has a separate

project team, it may be helpful to distinguish between a project management role in the sponsoring

organization and a project management role in the supplier organization.


43


Project Success

impact

contributes

Sponsor

Projectmanager

contributes

Supplier

coöperation

Figure 13: Extended framework for project success

2. Research the impact of situational factors to the a dapted model for project success .

Different authors have pointed out in literature that different external conditions might require different

organizational characteristics (of a project). Shenhar (2001) for instance reviews classical contingency

theory to conclude two important situational factors for projects: a) the degree of using new technology in

a project b) the complexity of the product delivered by the project. Van Aken (2002) argues the number

of external organizations involved in the project influences the way a project should be managed. These

situational factors are not part of the framework and require further research. A further suggestion is to

study the impact of organizational culture on the project success model. Are different success factors

critical in different cultural settings and what does this imply for the role of the sponsor and the project

manager? It is very well possible for instance, that a bureaucratic (role based) organization requires

different definitions of project roles than a highly innovative and task oriented environment. To define

cultural differences the work of Hofstede (2004) or Handy (1987) may be used as a starting point. Future

research could address the question of what are the relevant situational factors influencing the

successful outcome of projects. Next, it could determine if situational factors should be incorporated in

the framework we presented in our research and how.

3. Extent the (Delphi) research to include a greater di versity of respondents .

Our research is based on a limited number of respondents, mostly from the project and program

management community. To further substantiate results it would be helpful if research was done with

more respondents and with a greater diversity of respondents. It is possible that stakeholders with

different roles in a project hold different opinions on factors that make a project successful. More

diversity should ensure that different opinions are taken into account. Ideally the research should include

all of the roles that are typically involved in a project. Not only the project manager but also project team

roles, users, sponsors, suppliers, senior management etc.

4. Further research effective project governance .

The results of our Delphi research and the cases used in validation clearly show effective project

governance as a crucial factor for project success in the Dutch public sector. This importance suggests

further research in this area can be helpful. Research may be done to further define and detail effective

project governance arrangements and study how these should be implemented. It would be interesting

to research if the emphasis on governance in the Dutch public sector is related to its organizational

culture. Referring to the work of Handy (1987), the Dutch public sector seems to have a dominant role

based culture. The role culture bases its approach on the definition of the role or job to be done. The

functions and departments within such an organization are joined managerially only at the top in the

management team. Furthermore, the departments are connected through rules and procedures more

than through initiative or communication between individuals and groups. Role based cultures assume


44

and encourage stability and predictability. There is little drive to excel within role based organizations,

resulting in little initiative among employees. As Handy points out, role cultures abhor change, usually

first ignore it and respond to it by doing more of what they were already doing. It is very well possible the

need for governance in Dutch public sector is driven by its organizational culture.

8.4 Reflection At the start of this thesis project, my ideas were to research a very broad range of aspects that might be

relevant for the achievement of project success. I intended to research the definition of project success, the

factors influencing project success and the role of the project sponsor. But I also wanted to take situational

factors into account such as the culture within an organization and the level of new technology used in

projects. Given the available timeframe, this broad scope proved to be too ambitious already in the initial

stage of the research where I defined the problem and studied literature. It added too much complexity and

work in all aspects of the research: more literature to study, extra complexity in the Delphi research and in

the analysis of results. I therefore decided to focus my research on defining a general framework applicable

to the Dutch public sector. I feel and hope that this increased focus has benefitted the quality of results of my

thesis work.

In the initial phase of the thesis it took more time than I expected to come to a sufficiently sharp and

consistent definition of the problem that is suitable to use in scientific research. I have been working on

projects for the past 15 years but apparently it is still difficult to pin point the problem. Looking back on the

process of writing this thesis I feel that formulating a sharp and consistent problem definition is probably the

most important step in my research. For me it worked well that the literature research and problem definition

phases overlapped. It has led to the framework that I used consisting of success criteria, success factors and

the contribution of the project sponsor. The framework has proven to be useful in our research and I think it

is also suitable for future research in this area. I feel results presented in this thesis form a consistent,

concise and flexible framework for project success in the Dutch public sector. But it is not to be considered a

silver bullet as application in practice deals with people and is therefore not always self evident. People's

behaviour in or around projects is not only determined by rational factors. Other factors such as personal

interest, trust and friendship among actors may be equally important. This should be considered when using

our results in practice. The past has shown us there is no simple cook book to guarantees project success.

With regard to the Delphi approach, my thoughts are that it has suited the research well. Eleven respondents

participated in the research over multiple rounds. I personally found the time between the rounds helpful

because it enables you to analyze and reflect on results and use that in the next round. I think it would have

been more demanding to achieve similar results by doing multiple interviews or using the group decision

room. During the Delphi research I found that it is not easy to have all Delphi participants react on a survey

and in the time frame necessary for the research. It took some effort to remind participants to respond timely,

especially in the second and third round. But in the end I am happy with the number of respondents and the

attention they have given to the survey.

Literature

At the start of the research I expected to find many publications by project management practitioners and

only little scientific research on the topic of project success and sponsorship. This proved to be otherwise.

Yes, there are many publications by practitioners reflecting mainly their personal (often not validated)

opinions. But there is also a great deal of scientific well validated research available on the subject of project

success and success factors. On project sponsorship, there is less literature available. I experienced that the

document search tools available in the university library are by no means comparable to the tools I used

when I studied aerospace engineering in Delft years ago. More than ever, it is possible to get lost in the

available literature and I probably spend more time on it than planned.


45

Personal experiences: the journey is as important as the destination!

The Delft TopTech brochure for the master of IT management suggests it may be a personal challenge to

combine the IT management program with a busy working schedule and personal life. From personal

experience I can now say this is indeed the case, especially for the thesis project! For me it would not have

been possible to participate in the program without the support of my wife and family. I thank them for the

time and effort they spend in supporting me. But the thesis project has certainly been a rewarding time for

me. It has given me more insight into the 'holy grail' of project success and the role of the project sponsor. It

is not often that one takes the time to really study a subject in depth as is the case in the thesis project. I use

the knowledge and experience gained during the thesis in my work almost every day. For me personally I

found it very stimulating that through the university library a great wealth of literature is available on the

subject of project success. It made me want to read more and more literature and it was a challenge for me

to decide to finish the literature study and move on with the rest of the research. But despite the rich

literature and content, my most valuable experiences in the thesis project come from the discussions and

interactions with others on the subject. This goes for the discussions with my colleagues at work and at

Verdonck, Klooster & associates that participated in the Delphi survey. But certainly also in the meetings with

Gerard Wijers, my supervisor at the university and Hans Rekers, management coach affiliated with the

program. Their discussions have been of great help to me and gave me energy to push on.


46

References

APM (2004). Directing change: A guide to governance of project management. Buckinghamshire, Association of Project Management. APM (2009). Sponsoring change: A guide to the governance aspects of project sponsorship. Buckinghamshire, Association of Project Management: 34. Association of Project Management (2000). Syllabus for the APMP Examination, 2nd ed. High Wycombe, Association of Project Management. Atkinson, R. (1999). "Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria." International Journal of Project Management 17(6): 6. Baker, B., D. Murphy, et al. (1983). Factors affecting project success. Project management handbook. C. a. King. USA, Van Nostrand Reinhold. Belbin, M. (2010). Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail, Butterworth Heinemann. Boehm, B. and R. Ross (1989). "Theory-W software project management: principles and examples." Transactions on software engineering 15(7): 15. British Standards Institution (1996). British Standard in Project Management 6079. Bryde, D. (2008). "Perceptions of the impact of project sponsorship practices on project success." International Journal of Project Management 26: 10. Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). "The ‘‘real’’ success factors on projects." International Journal of Project Management 20: p185 - p190. Cooke-Davies, T. (2004). Project Success. The Wiley Guide to Managing Projects. P. W. G. Morris and J. K. Pinto, Wiley: p99 - p122. Crawford, L., T. Cooke-Davies, et al. (2008). "Governance and Support in the Sponsoring of Projects and Programs." Project management journal 39: 13. De Wit, A. (1988). "Measurement of project success." International Journal of Project Management 6(3): 7. Dekker, V. (2007). Automatiseringsramp lijkt onvermijdelijk. Trouw. Dekker, V. (2008). CBS: Rijk steekt veel meer in ICT dan beweerd. Trouw. Docters van Leeuwen, A. e. a. (2009). Gateway review NUP programma: Wederzijdse gijzeling in machteloosheid, of de As van het Goede? M. o. t. I. a. Kingdomrelations. Ernst&Young (2006). Resultaten ICT Barometer over ICT projecten 2006, Ernst & Young. Jaargang 6 . Ernst&Young (2007). Resultaten ICT Barometer over ICT projecten 2007, Ernst & Young. Jaargang 7 . Ernst&Young (2008). Resultaten ICT Barometer over ICT projecten 2008, Ernst & Young. Jaargang 8 . Ernst&Young (2009). Resultaten ICT Barometer over ICT projecten en portfolio management 2009, Ernst & Young. Jaargang 9 .


47

Hall, M., H. R., et al. (2003). "Project sponsors under new public management: Lessons from the frontline." International Journal of Project Management 33(3): 11. Handy, C. (1987). Gods of Management. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Helm, J. and K. Remington (2005). "Effective project sponsorship: The evaluation of the role of the executive sponsor in complex infrastructure projects by senior project managers." Project management journal 36(3): 10. Hofstede, G. and G.-J. Hofstede (2004). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York, McGraw-Hill. Janssen, M., A. van Veenstra, et al. (2010). Uit het Zicht: Beleidsmaatregelen voor het versnellen van het gebruik van ICT-toepassingen voor administratieve lastenverlichting: 53. Lechler, T. (1998). When it comes to project management it's the people that matter: An emperical analysis of project management in Germany. IRNOP III: The nature and role of projects in the next 20 years: Research issues and problems., Calgary, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Lechler, T. and J. Thomas (2007). Conceptual and empirical implications of the role of senior management support in project success. IRNOP VIII Conference. Brighton. Linstone, H. A. and M. Turoff (2002). The Delphi Method: Techniques and Application. Mitchell, R., B. Agle, et al. (1997). "Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts." Academy of Management Review 22(4): 853-886. Office of Government Commerce (2005). Managing successful projects with prince2. United Kingdom, The Stationery Office. OGC (2005). Managing successful projects with prince2. London, United Kingdom, The Stationery Office. OGC (2007). Managing successfull programs. London, United Kingdom, The Stationery Office. Pinto, J. and D. Slevin (1988). "Critical success factors across the project life cycle." International Journal of Project Management 8(3): 9. Pinto, J. and D. Slevin (1988). "Project success: definitions and measurement techniques." Project management journal 19(1): 6. Pinto, J. and D. Slevin (1989). "The project champion: key to implementation success." Project management journal 20(4): 15-20. Pinto, M. and J. Pinto (1991). "Determinants of cross-functional cooperation in the project implementation process." Project management journal 20(4): 6. Project Management Institute (2004). Project Management Body of Knowledge, 3rd ed. US, Project Management Institute. Rekenkamer (2007). Aanbesteding ICT component P-Direct. A. Rekenkamer, SDU. Rekenkamer (2007). Lessen uit ICT-projecten bij de overheid: Deel A, Algemene Rekenkamer. Rekenkamer (2008). ICT project huur en zorgtoeslag. A. Rekenkamer, SDU.


48

Rockart, J. F. (1982). "The Changing Role of the Information Systems Executive: A Critical Success Factor Perspective." Sloan Management Review 24(1): 3-13. Shenhar, A., D. Dvir, et al. (2001). "Project Success: A Multidimensional Strategic Concept." Long Range Planning 34: 27. Smith, M. (2003). "Business process design: Correlates of success and failure." Quality Management Journal 10(2): 38 - 50. Van Aken, T. (2002). De weg naar projectsuccess, Reed Business BV. Ward, J., P. Murray, et al. (2004). Benefits Management - Best Practice Guidelines, The Information Systems Research Center - Cranfield School of Management: 78. Wateridge, J. (1998). "How can IS/IT projects be measured for success?" International Journal of Project Management 16(1): 5. Weill, P. and J. Ross (2002). "Six IT Decisions Your IT People Shouldn’t Make. ." Harvard Business Review (November): 10. White, D. and J. Fortune (2002). "Current practice in project management – An empirical study." International Journal of Project Management 20(1): 11. Wysocki R., R. B. J., and D. Crane (1995). Effective project management. New York, Wiley.


49

A Personal attributes of the sponsor (APM)

Understand the role

� Understand the organisations governance arrangements

� Understand the sponsorship role

� Understand the project context

� Appreciate how the project contributes to the corporate strategy

Competences

� Provides clarity of direction

� Identifies and focuses on what matters most

� Delegates authority to appropriate levels

� Manages people and other resources effectively

� Makes effective decisions and takes decisive action when necessary

� Motivates people

� Negotiates effectively

� Has relevant experience

� Has sufficient appreciation of project's technical requirements

� Has a good understanding of project management

� Is self aware about strengths and weaknesses

� Demonstrates good judgement

Credibility

� Is respected by major stakeholders

� Has the ability to influence internal and external stakeholders

� Has an evident track record

� Is motivated to act in the long term interest of the organisation

Commitment

� Expected time commitment agreed, for short and long term

Engagement

� Has other responsibilities in the organization that gives insight into its dynamics

� Aligns the project with the interest of the organization

� Obtains regular updates on the organization's strategy


50

B Questionnaire for round 1 of the Delphi survey

1. Introduction What factors influence whether projects in the Dutch public sector become successful and how important

is the project sponsor in achieving that success? Those are the two central questions in this survey.

As a starting point for the survey I use the general framework for project success explained below. The

framework is put forward by Cooke-Davies based on different research on project success from the past

25 years (Cooke-Davies 2004). De questionnaire aims to add factors too the Cooke-Davies model that

are specific to the Dutch public sector. The second aim is too research the role of the project sponsor

with regard to project success.

I would like too ask you to send me the questionnaire before May 21.

Explanation of the general model

The model distinguishes between success criteria and success factors.

• Success criteria are indicators used to measure if a project is a success.

• Critical success factors are key factors that determine if a project will be successful.

The success criteria are further subdivided in two dimensions

• Criteria that are applicable to (the products of) the projects itself. This dimension is designated as

project management success en contains the success criteria time, money and quality. These

criteria can be measured during and directly after the project.

• Criteria to determine if a project is a success for the business. This dimension is designated as

project business success and contains the success criteria: benefits realized and the level of

satisfaction among stakeholders involved in the project.

ProjectManagement

Success

impact





satisfaction


To achieve project management success the model indicates the following critical success factors:

• Clear project goals


• Adequate (sufficient) resourcing

• Clarity about technical performance requirements




51

And the critical success factors for project business success:

• Clear project goals

• Stakeholder commitment and attitude


• Appropriate project strategy

2. Questions for project management success

Success criteriaCritical success factors

Project Mgmt success


� Clear project goals� Well selected, capable and

effective project team� Adequate resourcing� Clarity about technical

performance requirements� Effective planning & control� Good risk management

impact

Are there criti cal success factors in the model for project manage ment success that you think are

not critical or relevant for the Dutch public secto r?

Clear project goals

Well selected, capable and effective project team


Clarity about technical performance requirements



1.

Clarification (option):

Are there critical success factors for projects in the Dutch public sector that you think are missing

from the dimension project management success in th e general model?

You can add a maximum of three factors.

2.

Factor 1:

Clarification:


52

Factor 2:

Clarification:

Factor 3:

Clarification:

To what extent is a good sponsor relevant in realis ing the critical success factors in the dimension

project management success ?

No relevance medium High

1 2 3 4 5

Clear project goals

Well selected, capable and effective project

team


Clarity about technical performance

requirements



Factor 1 (indien toegevoegd bij vraag 2)


3.


Optional clarification:

3. Questions on project business success

Success criteriaCritical success factors

Project business success

� Benefits realized� Stakeholder

satisfaction

� Clear project goals� Stakeholder commitment

and attitude� Effective benefit

management and realization processes


impact


53

Are there critical success factors in the model for project business success that you think are not

critical or relevant for the Dutch public sector ?

Clear project goals

Stakeholder commitment and attitude

Effective benefit management and realization processes


5.

Clarification (optional):

Are there critical success factors for projects in the Dutch public sector that you think are miss ing

from the dimension project business success in the general model??

Factor 1:

Clarification:

Factor 2:

Clarification:

6.

Factor 3:

Clarification:

To what extent is a good sponsor relevant in realis ing the critical success factors in the dimension

project management success ?

No relevance Medium High

1 2 3 4 5

Clear project goals

Stakeholder commitment and attitude

Effective benefit management and

realization processes


Factor 1

Factor 2

7.

Factor 3


54

Optional clarification:


55

C Questionnaire for round 2 of the Delphi survey

1. Introduction This second questionnaire consists of two parts. In the first part we look back on the results from round

one of the survey. It gives you the opportunity to react on the framework for project success that I have

adapted based on your responses in round one. In particular you can react on aspects of the adapted

model that you disagree on or aspects that you feel should have been added to the framework based on

your suggestions in round one.

The second part of the questionnaire specifically targets the project sponsor: what are the most relevant

personal attributes of a project sponsor to fulfill this role.

2. Results from round one Based on the responses form round one the adapted framework now consists of the critical success

factors given below. Factors indicated in red have been added to or are changed from the original

framework.

2.1 Project Management success

• Clear project goals and business requirements

Achieve and maintain clarity about the goals of the project. Define the project in a way that clarifies

both the goals of the project and the needs of stakeholders. Minimize changes to the goals once the

project has started.


Select and assemble a capable project team of task-oriented individuals, led by a competent leader.

Ensure that the team contains the right capabilities, is appropriately structured, communicates well,

and has good processes for teamwork, problem solving, and decision making.

• Adequate (sufficient) resourcing

Ensure that the project is resourced adequately to the project scope and objectives. Mobilize top

management support and ensure that there is adequate support from the organization and effective

project administration.

• Effective change management

Establish from the start a clear and effective change management process and procedure. Ensure

the impact of change requests is determined transparently and efficiently and available to key

stakeholders for decision making.


Plan meticulously, using well-established estimating procedures, and to a sufficient level of detail to

allow effective monitoring and control. Maintain excellent metrics that relate the technical content of

work done to the elapsed time and expenditure incurred.


Employ established risk management practices that are well understood by all project participants,

including effective risk response development and control.

• Business case review

Ensure the business case is reviewed at the milestones defined for the project. Assess if the project

is still viable and on track to help realize the anticipated business benefits against reasonable cost.

Only after a positive decision the project progresses to the next phase

• Effective communication and stakeholder management



56



suppliers, and so on

• Effective project governance

Define the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders involved in the project and make

sure these are understood and acted upon. Organize sufficient decision making power in balance

with the power and influence of the different stakeholders involved. Define criteria for reporting

project status and agree an escalation process for issues to the levels required in the organization.

In round one I also asked you to indicate the factors that are most important for the project sponsor to

focus one and contribute to (on a scale from 1 to 5). The combined result from your answers on the

project management dimension is given in the table below.



Lowest score

Business Case review 5,0 5 5 Set clear project goals & business requirements 4,9 5 4 Effective communication & stakeholder management 4,7 5 3 Effective project governance 4,6 5 3 Good risk management 4,0 5 2 Adequate (sufficient) resourcing 3,8 5 3 Well selected, capable and effective project team 3,5 5 2 Effective planning & control 3,0 4 2 Effective change management process (3,0) (4) (2)

Are there critical success factors in the adapted framewor k you feel are not critical or relevant for project management success in the Dutch public sec tor?

1.

Clarification:

2.2 Project Business Success

• Clear project goals and business requirements

Achieve and maintain clarity about the goals of the project. Define the project in a way that clarifies

both the goals of the project and the needs of stakeholders. Minimize changes to the goals once the

project has started.

• Effective communication and stakeholder management




suppliers, and so on


57


Develop and sustain effective processes during the project and after completion to deliver the

anticipated benefits of the project and ensure that they are realized. Ensure that a close link is

developed and maintained between anticipated benefits, the business case for the project, and the


• Appropriate project strategy

Develop a project strategy, or ‘‘trajectory’’ in the words of Miller and Hobbs (2000), that is

appropriate to the unique environment and circumstances of the project. (Trajectory is a term that

encompasses both strategy and life cycle model, and is derived from a detailed study of 60

megaprojects.)

In round one I also asked you to indicate the factors that are most important for the project sponsor to

focus one and contribute to (on a scale from 1 to 5). The combined result from your answers on the

project business dimension is given in the table below.



Lowest score

Clear project goals & business requirements 4,8 5 5 Effective communication & stakeholder management 4,8 5 4 Effective benefit management and realization processes 4,1 5 3 Appropriate project strategy 3,5 5 2

Are there critical success factors in the adapted framewor k you feel are not critical or relevant for project business success in the Dutch public sector ?

2.

Clarification:

3. Questions on the personal attributes of the spon sor After the questions on the critical success factors I would like to ask you now to indicate the most

important personal attributes an effective project sponsor should have. As a starting point I use a list with

personal attributes proposed by the 'Association of Project Management' (APM) and ask you to indicate

the eight attributes you feel are most important. You can also add personal attributes to the list as long as

you don't choose more than eight personal attributes in total.

What are the eight most important perso nal attributes of a successful sponsor in the Dutch public

sector?

Please indicate the 8 most important attributes.

3.

Understanding the role


58

Understand the organisations governance arrangements

Understand the sponsorship role

Understand the project context

Appreciate how the project contributes to the corporate strategy

Competences

Provides clarity of direction

Identifies and focuses on what matters most

Delegates authority to appropriate levels

Manages people and other resources effectively

Makes effective decisions and takes decisive action when necessary

Motivates people

Negotiates effectively

Has relevant experience

Has sufficient appreciation of project's technical requirements

Has a good understanding of project management

Is self aware about strengths and weaknesses

Demonstrates good judgement

Credibility

Is respected by major stakeholders

Has the ability to influence internal and external stakeholders

Has an evident track record

Is motivated to act in the long term interest of the organisation

Commitment

Expected time commitment agreed, for short and long term

Engagement

Has other responsibilities in the organization that gives insight into its dynamics

Aligns the project with the interest of the organization

Obtains regular updates on the organization's strategy

Attributes you want to add (optional)

Attribute 1:

Attribute 2:

Attribute 3:


What are the three personal attributes that have th e greatest need or potential for improvement?

Please indicate a maximum of three attributes from the list in question 3.

4.

Attribute 1:


59


Attribute 2:


Attribute 3:



60

D Case study questionnaire and findings

Success factors and questions

Findings and issues

1. Business case review a) Has a business case been made

and is it positive? b) Is a business case reviewed at

major milestones? c) Does the sponsor take ownership of

the business case? d) For (out)sourcing relations: is there

also a positive business case for the supplier (insourcer)

� The management team (including project sponsor) decided a business case does need to be made. Therefore no dialogue with key stakeholders on benefits and disbenefits of proposed solutions has taken place.

� It is unclear if the business case of the supplier has remained positive during the realization of the project. The project was fixed price and has been delayed. It seems the supplier underestimated the project.

2. Clear project goals and business requirements a) Are goals of the project clear to

stakeholders involved? b) Are business requirements of

stakeholders clearly defined and sufficiently complete?

c) Are changes to the goals minimized?

d) Does the sponsor clearly set and communicate project goals?

Definition and sourcing phase � There was a major change in project goals during the

definition phase. Goals changed from creating a future proof architecture to rebuilding the current architecture. Goals were not sufficiently clear to project team in this phase. The sponsor did not play a very active role in communicating these goals.

� The change in goals made the project less attractive for potential suppliers. Only two supplier proposals were received during sourcing phase.

� Requirements were defined clearly during definition phase. Because of lack of documentation it could not be verified if requirements were complete.

Realization and transition phase � Goals were clear during realization and implementation. No

goal changes during this phase 3. Effective stakeholder management and

communication a) Are key stakeholders committed to

the project throughout its life cycle? b) Have effective communication and

conflict resolution methods been established?

c) Is the sponsor actively involved in stakeholder management?

d) Does the sponsor have sufficient power, position and seniority to influence other stakeholders?

Definition and sourcing � During the definition phase stakeholders from outside the

sponsoring organization were barely involved. This has been one of the reasons for the change in goals mentioned.

Realization and transition � Key internal stakeholders were part of the joined project

board and sufficiently committed. The sponsor was primarily active in stakeholder management towards the supplier.

� The supplier was present in joined project board meetings that served as an important escalation channel.

� Decisions taken in the joined steering board were not always communicated well to the supplier project team: on occasions the team acts different from project board decision

� At the start of the project, the supplier was in a reorganization and integration process. This has had a negative effect on communication and stakeholder management at the side of the supplier: existing processes, organization and personal relations were replaced and it takes time for the new to settle.

� (potential) Delays in the planning were not communicated transparently by the supplier but only at a late date. It is unclear if the supplier was aware of delay longer before it was communicated. The delay in migration date of customers was an important issue to the sponsoring organization.

� There are some doubts to the level of commitment of the supplier. It has been discussed more than once that supplier should have more resources on development of the project.


61

It has not taken this action. � As a result of these issues, the relation and communication

between sponsor and supplier came under pressure.

4. Effective project governance

a) Have project roles and responsibilities been defined and made clear from the start?

b) Has sufficient decision making power been organized?

c) Have criteria (metrics) for status reporting been defined?

d) Is an escalation process implemented?

e) Does the sponsor take up an active role to define and implement project governance?

Realization and transition � A joined steering board was formed at a late point in the

project: first meeting held four months after contract signing. � Before this time governance, roles and responsibilities were

not defined and implemented effectively both for the sponsoring organization and the supplier.

� The supplier changed its participants in the steering group more than once. At times it was unclear who had the decision power at the side of the supplier. Combined with the reorganization of the supplier organization, this results in ineffective supplier project governance: lack of decision and implementation power; roles and responsibilities unclear.

5. Good risk management

a) Are risk defined for the project b) Are risks reviewed regularly in

project board and or between sponsor and project manager?

c) Are appropriate measures taken when required?

� Risks are reported to and discussed in the project board during definition and realization phase.

6. Adequate resourcing a) Are sufficient resources allocated to

the project? b) Is there sufficient support from all

departments to deliver resources as required?

c) Is an effective project administration available?

Definition and sourcing � Sufficient resources at the start of definition phase. After the

change in goals there was more need for knowledge of existing situation which wasn't available.

Realization and transition � At the start of realization phase there was insufficient project

management capacity available in the sponsoring organization. Different roles were combined into one person (combination of project and line roles).

� The supplier had insufficient resources to develop the system. Therefore also no time to perform impact analysis on changes during the project.

� The supplier changed its project manager more than once. This has had a negative impact on progress.

7. Well selected, capable and effective

project team a) Does the team have the capabilities

required? b) Does the project leader have the

capabilities required? c) Does the project team work

together well and result oriented? d) Is the sponsor actively involved in

selection of the project team?

Definition and sourcing � Project team for definition phase had mostly right capabilities

and worked result oriented; the team lacked in knowledge of the existing situation.

� During definition phase there was little attention from sponsor for the project and its team.

Realization and transition � The sponsoring organization feels the supplier doesn’t have

sufficient project management capability to develop the system. The changes in project managers added to this issue.

8. Effective planning and control a) Is an accurate planning available

with sufficient level of detail? b) Is effective monitoring and control

implemented? c) Are metrics maintained to relate

work done to the planning?

Realization and transition � It has taken a long time before a final baseline milestone

planning was agreed with the supplier (5 months after contract signed).

� Only half way through the project combined progress reports were brought into the joined steering group.

� In the progress reports, no metrics are presented to relate work done to the planning (planned effort, actuals, still to go related to progress in deliverables). In their proposal, the


62

supplier did indicate to report this information. � The sponsoring organization feels the supplier

underestimated the effort required for the project. � Control in the steering group focussed mainly on the

planning aspect (time). There was little attention for budget and quality.

9. Effective change management a) Is a change management process

implemented for the project? b) Is impact of change requests

determined transparently? c) Is the impact analysis of change

requests available to stakeholders for decision making?

Realization and transition � Impact of changes is discussed in steering board meetings

but no impact analysis document was delivered. Changes that were presented as low impact for decision in steering board appeared to have more impact in the realization. Impact has been underestimated.

10. Benefit management a) Are benefits defined for the project? b) Is clear from the start who is

responsible to realize the benefits? Are these persons involved in the project?

c) Does benefit management continue after project closure?

d) Is benefits realization evaluated post project closure?

� A business case has not been made. Only a request was formulated by the management team that the maintenance cost would be reduced as a result of the project. Responsibility for these benefits was not clearly allocated.

� In effect benefit management was not implemented / carried out.

The role of the sponsor in successful public sector projects

Documents

Transcript of The role of the sponsor in successful public sector projects