Content uploaded by S. Pretorius
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by S. Pretorius on Dec 18, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
South African Journal of Industrial Engineering December 2023 Vol 34(4), pp 18-31
18
THE ROLES THAT PROJECT SPONSORS PLAY AT STAGE GATES OF A PROJECT LIFE CYCLE MODEL: A
CASE STUDY OF A WATER UTILITY IN SOUTH AFRICA
D. Nhubunga1*, H. Steyn1 & S. Pretorius1
ARTICLE INFO
Article details
Submitted by authors 19 Jun 2023
Accepted for publication 3 Nov 2023
Available online 14 Dec 2023
Contact details
Corresponding author
dnhubung@randwater.co.za
Author affiliations
1 Department of Engineering and
Technology Management,
University of Pretoria, Pretoria,
South Africa
ORCID® identifiers
D. Nhubunga
https://orcid.org/0009-0005-2076-6761
H. Steyn
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5913-6354
S. Pretorius
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4612-9558
DOI
http://dx.doi.org//10.7166/34-4-2902
ABSTRACT
Project sponsors play significant roles at the stage gates of project life
cycle models (PLCMs). However, research on the roles that sponsors play
at stage gates, and the attributes required of the sponsor, are sparse.
This study investigated the roles played by government and municipal
sponsors at the PLCM stage gates of a water utility, and identified the
attributes that the sponsor should have as well as the challenges they
face. A case study approach was employed, and semi-structured
interviews were conducted with relevant stakeholders. The findings
could assist the senior management of water utilities, national
government departments, and municipalities when appointing suitable
project sponsors.
OPSOMMING
Projekborge speel belangrike rolle by die fase stadium hekke van ‘n
projeklewensiklus model. Die rol van projekborgeby hierdie hekke, en
die kenmerke wat vereis word van die borg, is egter nog selde bestudeer.
Hierdie studie het die rol van staatsdiens en munisipale borge by hekke
tussen die fases van ‘n lewensiklus model van ‘n water-nutsorganisasie
ondersoek, en kenmerke waaroor die borge moet beskik asook uitdagings
wat hulle die hoof moet bied, geïdentifiseer. ‘n Gevallestudiebenadering
is gevolg, en semi-gestruktureerde onderhoude is met relevante
belanghebbendes gevoer. Die bevindings kan die senior bestuur van
water-nutsorganisasies, staatsdepartemente, en munisipaliteite help om
geskikte projekborge aan te stel.
1. INTRODUCTION
Project life cycles are fundamental to project management, since they offer a systemic and structured
approach [1]. Many organisations have adopted project management methodologies to initiate,
conceptualise, and implement projects to ensure that the right projects are selected and executed in order
to derive the value promised in the business cases [2]. Such methodologies are based on a standardised
project life cycle that consists of project phases, each with a specific purpose. A project sponsor (client
representative) who represents different interests at specific stage gates of a given project is part of the
many stakeholders who are involved during the project life cycle.
The roles of the sponsor during the project life cycle are extensively reviewed in the literature. For
instance, Kloppenborg, Manolis and Tesch [3] examined the role of the sponsor during the initiation stage
of the project life cycle, while James [4] emphasised the methods that project managers can use for the
effective participation of the sponsor in a project environment. Helm and Remington [5] and Crawford,
Cooke-Davies, Hobbs, Labuschagne, Remington and Chen [6] concentrated on the role and responsibilities
of the sponsor in the project governance framework of an organisation. Louw, Steyn, Wium and Gevers [7]
investigated the leadership style and attributes of the executive sponsor of megaprojects, while Hall, Holt
and Purchase [8] focused on the role of the sponsor in the general project management of a public entity.
Little research has been documented on the roles and attributes of the sponsors in the project life cycle of
public utilities.
19
The objective of this study is to investigate the roles that project sponsors play at the stage gates of the
project life cycle model (PLCM) of a water utility, and the attributes that the sponsor should possess to
make decisions at the stage gates. The PLCM of the water utility is applied across different disciplines in
the water utility for internally funded projects; and, through service level agreements, the water facility
is appointed by municipalities and government departments to implement infrastructure-related projects
on their behalf.
Two primary sponsors are involved: the municipal sponsor and the sponsor from a government department.
The government sponsor is a custodian of water resources, and their primary responsibility is
the formulation and implementation of policy governing the water sector [9]. This responsibility is
exercised through the implementation of water and sanitation-related programmes using different
implementing models – for example, appointing water utilities to facilitate the execution of these
programmes.
The municipal sponsor, on the other hand, is responsible for the provision of services such as electricity,
water and sanitation, roads, and stormwater management in local communities. Occasionally, owing to the
lack of capacity to implement projects related to these services, municipal sponsors opt to appoint other
government institutions such as the water utility to assist with the execution of these programmes [10].
The research questions for this study are:
RQ1: What are the roles of the project sponsors at each gate of the PLCM as perceived by other
stakeholders involved in the project?
RQ2: What difficulties do the sponsors experience in ensuring that the value promised in the
business case is achieved?
RQ3: How do the attributes perceived by the respondents differ from the ranking by Louw et al.
[7] in their investigation of the sponsor’s attributes in megaprojects?
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Project management methodology
The literature on project management methodologies and their application has presented organisations
with procedures to manage projects coherently and systematically [2]. A methodology provides a set of
methods, procedures, techniques, templates, and best practices across the project life cycle [2, 11]. A
typical methodology defines each of the phases in the project life cycle: the tasks and deliverables, the
stakeholders, and their responsibilities [2, 12]. Kerzner [13] supports Nelson, Ghods and Nelson’s [14]
assertion that a methodology increases the likelihood of the successful delivery of a project, and improves
results by enhancing clarity, control, and processes.
The water utility adopted a linear PLCM by using the Project Management Institute’s methodology [12] and
by applying it according to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) phases from project
initiation to close-out.
2.2. Project life cycle
The life cycle acts as a management tool in allocating resources, integrating activities, supporting decision-
making, and mitigating risk in projects. APM [1] defines a life cycle as a methodology consisting of a series
of stages that are needed to transform ideas into reality in an organised and structured way; and the ISO
[15] defines a project life cycle as a set of stages from the start to the end of the project. Specific
philosophies and project life cycle approaches are based on the type of project to be undertaken by a
particular organisation [1]. Therefore, project sponsors must understand the life cycle models adopted by
their organisation in order to execute projects better and so ensure that value is realised according to the
organisation’s strategic imperatives [1].
20
2.3. Roles and benefits of PLCM stage gates
The role and responsibilities of stakeholders involved in the stage-gate decision of a project are typically
predefined by the organisation, and the criteria to be used to assess the project and to ‘go‘ or ‘kill‘ or ‘give
the amber light’ are predetermined well ahead [16]. The objective of the appraisal in the PLCM stage gates
is to assess whether a project has met all of the prescribed criteria. If all of the criteria have been met,
the project can proceed (‘go’) to the next stage. If not, it could be terminated (‘killed’) or be frozen until
certain tasks are completed before a gate decision can be made by the organisation’s appraisal team [16].
Cooper, Edgett and Kleinschmidt [17] argue that, if the stage-gate approach is applied appropriately, it
may increase shareholder value and minimise the risk of spending time and money on projects that bring
insufficient value to the organisation. Depending on the type of project under consideration by the
organisation, the stakeholders involved at the stage gates may alternate during the project’s life cycle, as
is the case with projects implemented by the water utility.
2.4. Overview of the project sponsors
The PMI [12] defines a sponsor as a person or group who provide financial resources and take a fundamental
risk in a project, while Hall et al. [8] describe a sponsor as a representative of the public client and of the
client’s interest in the project. Thus the municipal and government sponsors are defined in the context
where an implementing agent such as the water utility is appointed to execute projects on their behalf.
Occasionally, owing to a lack of capacity and limited project management expertise to implement
infrastructure-related projects, municipal and government sponsors appoint external service providers such
as consultants and contractors to assist with project implementation [10]. However, the appointed service
providers require constant monitoring from the project’s initiation to the project close-out phases of the
PLCM [18]. As mentioned earlier, sponsors then enter into a contractual arrangement for a defined period
through service-level agreements with the implementing agents, such as the water utilities, to implement
these projects through the utilities’ adopted project management methodologies.
2.5. The role of the project sponsor in a PLCM
The sponsor’s role is limited not only to ensuring that the project delivers the outcome of the business case
[1, 4, 7, 12, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22], but also to making sure that informed decisions are made at the stage
gates, as described in Table 1.
Table 1: Roles of a sponsor
Description of the role of a sponsor References
Key in delivering the value of the project.
[1, 4, 7, 20, 21,
22, 23, 24]
Acts as a leader to guide the project team and stakeholders. He/she takes decisive
action to achieve the objectives of the business case.
[7, 21, 25]
Plays a pivotal role in the success or failure of a project. This includes being a ‘seller’
of the project to the stakeholders, coach, and mentor of the project manager,
motivating and protecting the project team from any unnecessary bureaucracy that
may destruct the project team.
[6, 25, 26, 27,
28]
Ensures that the project is consistent with the business’s strategic objectives. [22, 29]
Alignment of project outcome with the business case. [19, 30]
Strengthens the stakeholder’s relationship at a macro level, and ensures that
individual stakeholders’ interests are considered in the stage gates of the PLCM.
[22, 28]
Provides support to the project team to drive the execution of the project through
motivation.
[5, 6]
Advocates for the generation of knowledge and learning. [5,19]
21
Table 1: Roles of a sponsor (cont.)
Description of the role of a sponsor References
Provides clarity on the vision and direction of the project team and on the
responsibility of the project team.
[1, 25, 31, 32,
33]
Acts as a link between the project team and the senior management of the
organisation
[6, 25, 29]
Clearly defined roles and responsibilities of the sponsor in different stages of the PLCM will mitigate biased
decision-making at the stage gates as a result of the sponsor’s lack of either knowledge or a skill set. These
responsibilities are directly linked to the attributes that the sponsor must have to make informed decisions
in the PLCM stage gates.
2.6. Attributes of the project sponsor
The sponsor must ensure that decisions made at the stage gates adhere strictly to the PLCM. As summarised
in Table 2, the personal attributes of the sponsor are central to the roles that they play in the decision-
making process during the project life cycle.
Table 2: Attributes of sponsor
Description of the sponsor’s attributes References
Should possess a mix of skills to direct the project team, such as leadership,
behavioural skills, and management of complex projects.
[1, 5, 6, 7, 19, 34, 35]
A better comprehension of the development of the business cases and sound
project management principles and skills.
[19, 34, 36]
Have deep knowledge of the business and its market. [6, 19]
Understand business culture, internal politics, and bureaucracies. [6, 31, 35]
Collaborate with stakeholders, specifically project
Managers, to ensure the delivery of project objectives.
[25, 34]
An environment of open communication based on trust with project managers. [19, 25]
Ability to engage with and communicate divergent matters at different levels of
the business.
[5, 6, 34, 35]
Should be credible and have a level of seniority in the organisation, and have
positional and personal power in the business.
[1, 5, 6]
Should be a good negotiator and be decisive in resolving conflicts. [19, 25, 36]
Should have the capability to lead for results and achieve project success by
directing the project team.
[25, 34]
Should clearly understand the role of a project sponsor, and can explain the
need to create an alignment between the project and the business strategy.
[31, 37]
Often a sponsor does not have all of the attributes that are required to make decisions at each stage gate
of the project [4, 7]. Hypothetically, that statement also holds for municipal and government sponsors.
The attributes of sponsors in the water utility are therefore critical in the stage gates of the PLCM, based
on the types of stakeholder involved in each gate. For instance, community consultation and engagement
during the initiation and execution phases of the project play a fundamental role in the success or failure
of the project; and therefore the sponsor should be able to:
communicate and engage with divergent issues across all levels of the business [5, 6, 34, 35];
collaborate with all stakeholders to strengthen the relationship [25, 34]; and
22
ensure that the interests of the stakeholders involved in the project are considered in the PLCM
stage gates [22, 28].
2.7. Project life cycle model of the water utility
The water utility adopted a linear project life cycle model, using the Project Management Institute’s (PMI)
methodology, with initiation, planning, execution, and close-out phases [12], as depicted in Figure 1. The
ability and capability of the municipal and government sponsors to make informed decisions at each stage
gate of the PLCM of the water utility influenced the realisation of the project’s value.
The attributes possessed by the sponsor to assess whether the project should proceed (green light), proceed
with caution (amber light), terminate (red light), or freeze (red light) until certain activities are completed
before a gate decision can be made by the appraisal team in an organisation [16].
The objective of the project initiation phase in the PLCM is to ensure that the needs analysis of the business
is informed by the organisation’s strategic objectives; and the project planning phase is to implement the
outcome of the feasibility study/business case after the signing off by the stakeholders. In the project
execution phase, the procurement process is initiated through the preparation of specification documents
for approval by the relevant supply chain committees and the award of contracts for the physical execution
and monitoring of the project by the sponsor. The purpose of the project close-out phase is to ensure that
the project delivers according to the business case – i.e., the deliverables of the projects are evaluated
against the final product. This phase is the last gate, when the project is handed over to operations.
Figure 1: PLCM of the water utility
3. RESEARCH METHOD AND APPROACH
3.1. Research strategy
Based on the research design methods reviewed by Mayring [38] and Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill [39] –
i.e., exploratory, descriptive, evaluative, explanatory, descriptive, and combined – the research adopted
the exploratory qualitative study approach in the form of a case study of the project life cycle of a water
utility in South Africa.
Phase 1: Project
initiation
Gate 1 (Needs Analysis)
Opportunity
identification based on
business needs and
screening is done
Gate 2 (Feasibility)
Evaluates the project's
potential for success
Gate 3 (Stakeholder
identification)
Appointment of project
manager and steering
committee
Phase 2: Project
planning
Gate 4 (Planning)
Project scope of work
and project charter are
complied with. Sign-off
by stakeholders
Gate 5 (Preliminary
design)
Preliminary design work
is executed and
presented
Gate 6 (Detailed
design)
Detailed design is
developed on the prelim
design, and tender
specifications are
compiled
Phase 3: Project
execution
Gate 7 (Initiate
procurement process)
Develop contracting
strategy based on the
form of the FIDIC
contract and submit for
consideration
Gate 8 (Initiate project
execution)
Acquire budget
approvals, initiate all
SCM committees and
award
Gate 9 (Execution)
Physical project
execution by the service
provider commences
Phase 4: Project close-
out
Gate 10 (Project
close-out)
Emphasises that each
stakeholder agrees that
all adminstrative,
financial and logistical
aspects of the project
have been concluded,
executed and
documented
23
3.2. Data collection
A total of twelve participants were interviewed. The participants’ selection was based on their knowledge
and experience in the field of project management, project sponsorship, and public utilities implementing
agent agreement arrangements.
The data collection for the study was aided by employing semi-structured interviews with the 12
participants; five of them were project sponsors and seven were from the water utility.
The participants interviewed from the water utility were the programme manager, project manager,
project design office manager, finance portfolio analyst, and three members of the supply chain
committees. All of the interviews were carried out using the online virtual platform (Microsoft Teams).
For ease of reference during the interviews, the researcher shared the PLCM of the water utility via
Microsoft Teams to enable the participants to engage meaningfully when responding to the interview
questions. The participants were also emailed a list of 37 attributes of the project sponsor according to the
findings of Louw et al. [7], and were asked to indicate the most important attributes.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The findings of the study suggested that sponsors are generally supposed to play an active role in the stage
gates of the water utility’s PLCM, particularly in the project initiation, execution, and close-out phases.
However, in some stage gates, the role of the sponsors was found to be passive as a result of poor
stakeholder and community engagement and insufficient project monitoring, which inevitably led to
problems that hindered the achievement of the business cases’ deliverables.
The results pointed to the following findings, based on the research questions:
RQ 1: What are the roles of the project sponsors at each gate of the PLCM as perceived by other
stakeholders involved in the project?
The findings of the research show that the sponsors generally play an active role in the stage gates of the
water utility’s PLCM, particularly during the project initiation phase. In the initiation phase, the sponsor
conducts the needs analysis, the feasibility studies and business case, the stakeholder mapping, and
consultations. These findings correlate with the literature on the significant role of the sponsor during
project initiation [3].
The results of the study also pointed to the active role of the sponsor during the project needs analysis and
feasibility study gates of the project life cycle. The findings confirm the role of the sponsor as a seller and
the owner of the business case to the stakeholders, as advocated by Bucero and Englund [26]. However,
the role of the sponsor in stakeholder consultation and engagement was perceived by the stakeholders to
be passive. The need for the sponsor to be actively involved during this stage of the project life cycle
confirms the role of the sponsor as a negotiator who will eliminate obstacles, resolve conflicts, and act as
a link with senior management and other stakeholders to communicate about the various issues of the
project [26, 40].
The passive role of both sponsors (municipal and government) during stakeholder consultation is linked to
the assumptions that (i) since the water utility is appointed as an implementing agent, the sponsors should
withdraw at these stage gates and the water utility should take the leading role; and that (ii) the sponsors
view stakeholder engagement and consultation as a one-off event during the needs analysis stage gate
rather than as an ongoing dialogue.
The latter argument is evident during the project execution phase when conflicts arise between the
contractors and local community members. The sponsors’ attitude is that the water utility should resolve
the conflicts, even though the issues of concern are based on the initial promises made during the project
initiation phase – before the involvement of the water utility.
The project planning phase is one of the critical phases in the project life cycle, since it is usually kick-
started after the project charter has been signed off by all of the stakeholders. Fundamentally, the role of
24
the sponsor, as elaborated by the findings at this phase, is to minimise the project design risks of developing
a project that is misaligned with the imperatives of the business case.
The results revealed the active role of the sponsors during the design stage gates of the PLCM; that is, both
the municipal and the government sponsors emphasised their active role to ensure that the developed
product is consistent with the deliverables of the business case. However, members of the water utility
(the procurement committee members, the finance portfolio analyst, and the design office manager)
argued that the PLCM of the water utility was to be used for the project execution phase, and thus the
sponsors should only monitor the project progress and not be involved in the approval of the project design
stage gates.
The above findings are based solely on the project risk management component during the design stage
gates and on how the stakeholders, both sponsors, and the water utility were going to mitigate risks
effectively during the project life cycle. Vogwell [41] argues that an ineffective risk management plan
could affect the delivery of value for the project.
This diversity of views among the stakeholders is symptomatic of a fragmentation of the roles and
responsibilities in the service level agreement between the sponsors and the implementing agent, which
could lead to an ineffective risk management plan for the project and compromise the outcome of the
business case.
During the project execution phase, the role of the sponsor (as perceived by the stakeholders) was found
to be passive, particularly during the physical implementation of the project. The inactive role of the
sponsor during this phase was attributed to the lack of capacity owing to a high workload and other
responsibilities that led to poor project monitoring and evaluation. Bucero and Englund [26] state that the
presence of the sponsor as a motivator during milestone meetings is key in reminding the project team
about the importance of the project’s mission. Consequently, the absence of the sponsor because of
capacity constraints could result in poor communication and information-sharing with senior management
and other stakeholders, which could lead to a longer turnaround time in resolving project conflicts.
In contrast to the passive role of the sponsors during the execution phase, the implementing agent (the
water utility) assumes the leading role, and only consults the sponsors on scope adjustment and the
availability of funds. The consultative function and the advisory role displayed by the sponsors are viewed
by the stakeholders as the sponsors providing leadership, motivation, and direction to the project team
[21, 25]. Thus the sponsors play an active role as financial providers and show leadership as business case
owners. The level of involvement (or lack thereof) by the sponsors is based on the fact that, at the principle
and policy level, the sponsor is the owner of the project, and the water utility is viewed as an extended
arm of government to assist with the project implementation and with contract management.
The project closeout phase signifies the finalisation of all of the completed project activities across all
phases of the project. The findings from the study confirm the important role of the sponsor in the project
close-out phase of the project life cycle, as noted by Fahri, Biesenthal, Pollack and Sankaran [42]. Although
some lack of commitment on the part of the sponsor was noted, it contrasted with the findings of
Kloppenborg and Tesch [40], who emphasised the sponsor’s active role in reviewing the implementing
agent’s performance contract according to the project implementation plan.
The impact and value realisation of the project should be evaluated by the sponsor after this phase.
Fundamentally it is the role of the sponsor to ensure that the business benefits of the project are achieved
[42]. The study, in agreement with the literature, pointed out the most important roles of the sponsor
during the project life cycle of the water utility as being:
a financial provider [12, 24];
a seller of the business case [25];
acting as a link between the project and the senior management [6, 25, 29] of government and
the water utility; and
providing leadership to the project team [21, 25] for the implementation of all of the stage gates
in order to achieve value.
However, the role of the sponsors in enabling knowledge generation across the project team [19, 34] was
found to be lacking throughout the stage gates of the PLCM. This was based on the fact that the municipal
25
and government sponsors were primarily interested in the final product and less interested in learning and
knowledge-sharing amongst the project team.
RQ 2: What difficulties do the sponsors experience in ensuring that the value promised in the business case
is achieved?
The findings of the study revealed the primary difficulties that were experienced by the sponsors to achieve
value, specifically during the project execution and close-out phases of the water utility’s project life cycle
model. These included:
the lack of funding from the sponsor to complete the multi-year projects;
project overruns because of a lengthy turnaround time in the stage gates approvals by the sponsor,
possibly because of capacity constraints;
political interference; and
poor stakeholder consultation and engagements throughout the project life cycle phases.
These findings support earlier evidence on the factors contributing to the underperformance of the project
and the value realisation of the project [43]. The sponsor is expected, among other things, to provide
human resources [33] and financial capacity [24] for the projects, to strengthen stakeholder relationships,
and to consult communities before and during the implementation of the project [22, 28].
The findings show different approaches to consulting with the community and local businesses. In other
projects, a single community meeting is sufficient to introduce the project concept [40]. However, the
findings of this study highlighted a need for ongoing engagement with different stakeholders before
finalising the project concept and after the approval of the project charter throughout the implementation
and close-out phases of the project life cycle. This analysis is supported by Hall et al. [8], who argue for
constant stakeholder dialogue (rather than a once-off event) during the lifetime of the project. Effective
consultations are necessary to establish a common understanding with stakeholders on project deliverables,
processes, and budgets. These consultations can reduce community members’ unrealistic expectations
about the jobs that would be created by the projects and mitigate inappropriate sub-contracting demands
by local business forums.
The finding about the unrealistic expectations of communities is indicative of the impact of high
unemployment and poverty rates in South Africa. The project initiative in the community is viewed as an
opportunity to earn income. Furthermore, political parties have promised communities employment and
business opportunities through presidential proclamations and the local government’s integrated
development plan (IDP) processes. These sentiments regarding the impact of changes in the political
landscape of public utilities are echoed by Hall and Holt [44].
When community and stakeholder expectations are not met, communities take their frustrations to project
implementation sites through disruptive demonstrations, and even vandalising project equipment. This
affects project implementations and timelines further, contributing to increases in project cost and
overrun. Similar observations were reported in construction projects in other developing countries, such as
Nigeria and Tanzania, that were struggling with high unemployment and poverty [45].
Poor stakeholder engagement and consultation were found to be linked to the sponsor’s lack of capacity to
monitor the project timeously and their intermittent attendance at project meetings. This was caused by
the sponsor representative handling up to five or more projects – contrary to the international norm that a
project manager should ideally handle only two or three projects at a time [46]. The water utility partially
fulfilled the role of the sponsor as a negotiator to manage conflicts; but it was not sufficient, as it was
found that conflicts took longer to be resolved and led to budget overruns and community disruptions [26].
RQ 3: How do the attributes perceived by the respondents differ from the ranking by Louw et al. [7] in their
investigation of the sponsor’s attributes in megaprojects?
26
Ranking of sponsor’s attributes
The participants ranked the 37 attributes listed by Louw et al. (2021). Figure 2 presents the top three
attribute rankings in order of importance in each case – i.e., the most important, the second most
important, and the third most important attributes.
The three attributes that were ranked most important by the respondents were the sponsor’s ability to (i)
manage conflict, (ii) manage stakeholders’ expectations, and (iii) be politically astute. This ranking was
based on the facts that the projects implemented by the water utility were not immune to political
interference and that the sponsors’ understanding of the role would prevent unwarranted conflict with
other stakeholders and with the senior management of the government departments and the water utility.
Figure 2: Attributes ranked by sponsors and the implementing agent
Attributes such as (i) understanding the business and business case, (ii) understanding the basic principles
of project management, and (iii) the ability of the sponsor to communicate and listen were considered the
second most important attributes for the sponsors to have throughout the PLCM, especially during the
planning phase, since there would be intense consultations and engagements with stakeholders and business
forums, as discussed in the earlier sections of this study.
Concerning the third most important attributes, the results showed that attributes such as (i) negotiation
skills, (ii) the experience and knowledge of the sponsor, and (iii) the seniority and positional power of the
sponsor were not regarded as key characteristics of the project sponsors in executing projects in the public
utility. These results contrast with the attributes ranking by Louw et al. [7]; for instance, the positional
power of the sponsor was ranked as essential in megaprojects. This contrast is discussed further in the next
section.
02468101214
Negotiation skills
Understanding the basic principles of project
management
Manage conflict
Understanding the business and business case
Manage stakeholder expectations
Experience and knowledge
Ability to communicate and listen
Politically astute
Seniority and power
Top attributes rankings
Most important attributes Second most important attributes Third most important attributes
27
Comparisons of attributes results with those in the findings of Louw et al. (2021)
Figure 3 illustrates the top eight essential attributes (separated by the borderline) needed by the project
sponsors as ranked by Louw et al. [7] in public and private megaprojects.
Figure 3: comparisons of project sponsor attributes
Therefore, considering the top attributes in each of the studies, attributes such as (i) seniority and power,
(ii) understanding the business case, (iii) the ability of the sponsor to communicate and listen, (iv)
understanding the basic principles of project management, and (v) the sponsor’s objectivity and ability to
challenge the project team were found to be in common with the attributes listed by Louw et al. [7].
Even though the attributes were shared, they differed in priority; for instance, seniority and power, the
sponsor’s objectivity, and the ability to challenge the project were ranked the third most important
attributes by the respondents, contrary to the highest ranking by Louw et al. [7]. In an organisation where
the sponsor is described as a person or group, the sponsor’s positional power and seniority are critical [23];
hence its ranking by Louw et al. [7] as essential. However, in the context of this study’s definition of the
sponsor as being an entity and the manager of a project who represents the clients’ (municipal and
government sponsors) interests, this attribute is at the senior management level of the sponsors, and thus
has little influence on the direction of the project.
Seniority and power in the water utility, government, and the municipality are also at the senior
management level; this simply implies that the sponsor’s representative has very limited delegated
authority to exert influence beyond their role, and that having these attributes would not be an impediment
to discharging their duties in the project life cycle.
In contrast to the ranking by Louw et al. [7], the findings revealed that attributes such as being politically
astute, managing conflicts, and managing stakeholder expectations were key, and were ranked as the most
important in achieving project value. These attributes are at the centre of the ability of the sponsors and
the implementing agent to understand changing political dynamics in order to manage potential conflicts
caused by policy changes and to manage stakeholder expectations through the project life cycle. The
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
*Seniority and power
*Understand the business/business case
*Be objective and challenge the project team
*Provide clarity of direction
*Take holistic view/see the big picture
*Understand basic project management
*Select the team/keep the right people
*Communicate and listen
Engage and take personal owernship
Have experience and be knowledgeable
Use judgement and deal with compromises
Understand the role
Number of interviewees
Description of
attributes
Essential Important
28
megaprojects investigated by Louw et al. [7] (predominantly petrochemical projects) were mostly subject
to internal company politics and, to a much lesser extent, to public opinion. Stakeholder groups are
normally represented by professionals.
Projects executed by the water utility, on the other hand, are executed by the government, where national
political issues such as job creation and service delivery play a significant role. In the projects investigated
by Louw et al. [7], local communities did not play any significant role, while in projects executed by the
water utility, local communities (including large numbers of poor and unemployed people) have specific
beliefs and expectations that result from the implicit and explicit promises made by politicians. These
factors explain why being politically astute, managing conflict, and managing stakeholder expectations are
more important attributes of project sponsors in the projects of the water utility.
To a lesser extent, there are areas of commonality between this study and the findings by Louw et al. [7]
on the attributes needed by project sponsors. However, there is a fundamental difference in the priority
of the attributes for projects executed by the water utility on behalf of government departments. This
difference could be related to the nature of the cases considered by Louw et al. [7] compared with the
type and categories of projects implemented by the water utility. Therefore, the following attributes
should be considered by the senior management of water utilities (national government and municipalities)
when assigning project representatives to implement projects:
1. Politically astute – This attribute is significant, since projects implemented in the government
arena are funded from the national fiscus, and internal and external political dynamics potentially
influence their direction [8], especially during the implementation phase.
2. Ability to manage conflict – Conflict arises from time to time in the project life cycle, especially
in projects that are implemented at the community level, such as the ones implemented by the
water utility. Therefore, the ability of the project sponsor to deal with conflict as it arises and to
be decisive is key in ensuring that the deliverables of the business case are achieved.
3. The ability to manage stakeholder expectations - Ongoing engagement with project stakeholders,
including the community where the project is implemented, should be managed in such a way that
their interests are considered at all times. The research findings revealed the importance of this
attribute, since many of the projects sponsored by the government were delayed, resulting in
project overruns owing to poor stakeholder management.
4. Understanding the business and business case – The sponsor (and its representative) should
understand the business environment, including the customer and the market in which it operates.
Therefore, the sponsor should understand the three spheres of government (local, provincial, and
national), and the legislative frameworks governing them would help in resolving conflict quickly.
Furthermore, the sponsor’s representative should understand and know how to ensure that the
deliverables of the business case are achieved.
5. Understanding the basic principles of project management - The sponsor’s representative and the
water utility’s project manager should have a basic understanding of the principles of project
management and the project life model that particular projects are following. This holds true
especially when different spheres of government are involved, since conflict may arise over the
rationale of following certain methodologies of project management.
6. Ability to communicate and listen – The ability of the sponsor’s representative and the project
manager to communicate divergent issues at the appropriate level is seen as part of taking
stakeholders’ interests seriously, especially when implementing government projects.
Communication and listening to stakeholders would foster an element of transparency, specifically
when dealing with business forums at a community level.
7. Experience and knowledge – Experience in the fields of project management and government
legislative frameworks, and understanding the implication of the project, would be crucial to
delivering value for the project.
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The study revealed that the level of involvement of the project sponsor differed significantly at different
gates of the PLCM. During the implementation of the project, the passive role of the sponsor regarding
stakeholder engagement and consultation resulted in poor risk management. A strategy to address
stakeholders’ interests should be developed early in the initiation phase of the project, and form part of
the business case deliverables. If and when the project environment changes, the developed strategy should
29
be reviewed by the sponsor in consultation with the implementing agent and the affected stakeholders
(throughout all stage gates of the project life cycle).
The impact of the passive role of the sponsor, specifically during the project implementation phase, was
evident during events such as when contractors stopped working, community disruptions, and protracted
negotiations between local business forums and the implementing agent. It is highly recommended that
sponsors play a more active role throughout the project life cycle, and particularly during the project
implementation phase.
The study also found a lack of capacity in the sponsors to conduct project monitoring during the project
execution stage. The lack of capacity was revealed by the number of projects being handled by a project
manager at the same time, resulting in the sponsors not being able to fulfil their role satisfactorily at the
gate before the execution stage. The lack of capacity was associated with financial constraints in the
sponsor’s department to recruit and retain project managers, which was indicative of ineffective resource
planning by the sponsors during the development of the business case.
The problems encountered by the sponsor in creating maximum project value were found not to be unique
in a developing country such as South Africa [45], which is grappling with a high unemployment rate,
poverty, and inequality. These factors manifested through project disruptions that occurred in the
community, since projects are viewed by many as a source of income to address poverty and inequality.
Furthermore, political interference, primarily at the local government level, was shown to affect the
project delivery and to lead to conflict between the stakeholders, the implementing agent, and the
sponsors, which in turn resulted in escalating project costs and delays. At the heart of some of these factors
was the capability of the project sponsors actively to conduct stakeholder consultation and engagement
throughout the project life cycle.
When project sponsors are appointed, candidates should be assessed for possessing the required personal
attributes. The most important attributes that sponsors should have are being politically astute, managing
stakeholder expectations, and managing conflict. Other attributes of note include:
understanding the basic principles of project management;
understanding business and business cases;
communicating and listening;
negotiation skills; and
experience and being knowledgeable in the fields of project management and legislative
frameworks.
As mentioned in the introduction, the role of the sponsor is critical in the decision-making at the stage
gates of PLCM, as it contributes to optimising the value of a project. Appropriate sponsor attributes are a
major factor that determines the effectiveness of the sponsor throughout the project life cycle.
The practical value of the study for the water utility includes the following:
It informs executives about the difficulties that sponsors face;
it guides senior management in assigning/appointing sponsors; and
it provides guidelines for sponsors.
Recommendations for future studies include the following. This study investigated only the attributes of
the PLCM of a water utility up to project closeout. A further study should investigate and rank the key
attributes beyond project close-out (i.e., into the operational phase). The level of involvement of the
project sponsor and the implementing agent in stakeholder consultation during the project life cycle should
also be investigated. The impact of the perceived political interference of stakeholders during the project
implementation phase of the project life cycle could also be explored.
We believe that this paper could make a small contribution towards water security in South Africa,
and assist executives to appoint suitable project sponsors.
30
REFERENCES
[1] Murray-Webster, R. & Dalcher, D. 2019. APM body of knowledge, 7th ed. Princes Risborough:
Association for Project Management.
[2] Nicholas, J.M. & Steyn, H. 2021. Project management for engineering, business and technology,
6th edition. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Group.
[3] Kloppenborg, T.J., Manolis, C. & Tesch, D. 2009. Successful project sponsor behaviors during
project initiation: An empirical investigation. Journal of Managerial Issues, 21(1), pp. 140–59.
[4] James, V. 2013. Strategies for project sponsorship. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress October
2013, New Orleans, LA.
[5] Helm, J. & Remington, K. 2005. Effective project sponsorship: An evaluation of the role of the
executive sponsor in complex infrastructure projects by senior project managers. Project
Management Journal, 36(3), pp. 51–61.
[6] Crawford, L., Cooke-Davies, T., Hobbs, B., Labuschagne, L., Remington, K. & Chen, P. 2008.
Governance and support in the sponsoring of projects and programs. Project Management Journal,
39(1), pp. S43–55.
[7] Louw, W., Steyn, H., Wium, J.A. & Gevers, W. 2021. Executive sponsor attributes and megaproject
success. International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, 13(1), pp. 1-30.
[8] Hall, M., Holt, R. & Purchase, D. 2003. Project sponsors under new public management: Lessons
from the frontline. International Journal of Project Management, 21(7), pp. 495–502.
[9] Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) 2022. About us. Available from:
https://www.dws.gov.za/about.aspx#vision
[10] Mokgethi, D.M. 2020. The application of project management methodology for municipal
infrastructure grant projects: The case of Ramotshere Moiloa Local Municipality. Master’s
dissertation, North-West University.
[11] Jovanovic, P. & Beric, I. 2018. Analysis of the available project management methodologies.
Journal of Sustainable Business and Management Solutions in Emerging Economies, 23(3), pp. 1–13.
[12] Project Management Institute (PMI). 2008. A guide to the project management body of knowledge
(PMBOK Guide), 4th ed. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
[13] Kerzner, H. 2001. Strategic planning for project management using project management maturity
model. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
[14] Nelson, K.M., Ghods, M. & Nelson, H.J. 1998. Measuring the effectiveness of a structured
methodology: A comparative analysis. Proceedings of the Thirty-First Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, IEEE, pp. 492–499.
[15] International Standards Organization (ISO). 2012. ISO 21500: Guidance on project management.
[16] Rocque, B.L. & Viali, W.A. 2004. At the stage gate: Critical questions for IT project sponsors. Paper
presented at PMI® Global Congress 2004, Anaheim, CA. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management
Institute.
[17] Cooper, R., Edgett, S.J. & Kleinschmidt, E.J. 2002. Portfolio management: Fundamental to new
product success. In The PDMA ToolBook 1 for New Product Development, P. Belliveau, A. Griffin,
and S. Somermeyer (eds). New York: Wiley, pp. 331–364.
[18] Westland, J. 2006. The project management life cycle: A complete step-by-step methodology for
initiating, planning, executing & closing a project successfully. London: Kogan Page.
[19] Barshop, P.H. 2016. Capital projects: What every executive needs to know to avoid costly mistakes
and make major investments pay off. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
[20] Schmid, P. & Koch, A. 2004. How sponsors and top management make projects fail or succeed.
Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2004—EMEA, Prague, Czech Republic. Newtown Square PA:
Project Management Institute.
[21] Pacelli, L. 2005. Top ten attributes of a great project sponsor. Paper presented at PMI® Global
Congress 2005—North America, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Newtown Square, PA: Project
Management Institute.
[22] Labuschagne, L., Cooke-Davies, T., Crawford, L., Hobbs, J.B. & Remington, K. 2006. Exploring
the role of the project sponsor. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2006—North America,
Seattle, WA. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
[23] PMI. 2010. Executive engagement: The role of the sponsor. PMI White Paper.
[24] PMI. 2013. Executive engagement: The role of sponsor, business solutions: White paper.
[25] Bucero, A. & Englund, R.L. 2015. Project sponsorship: Achieving management commitment for
project success, 2nd ed. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
[26] Kloppenborg, T., Stubblebine, P.C. & Tesch, D. 2007. Project manager vs. executive perceptions
of sponsor behaviors. Management Research News, 30(11), pp. 803–815.
31
[27] Oz, E. & Sosik, J.J. 2000. Why information systems projects are abandoned: A leadership and
communication theory and exploratory study. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 41(1), pp.
66–78.
[28] Schibi, O. & Lee, C. 2015. Project sponsorship: Senior management’s role in the successful outcome
of projects. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2015—EMEA, London, England. Newtown
Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
[29] Lechtman, E. 2005. A holistic framework for successfully sponsoring IT projects from an IT
governance perspective. Master’s dissertation, University of Johannesburg.
[30] Ng, C.H. & Walker, D.H.T. 2008. A study of project management leadership styles across life cycle
stages of an IT project in Hong Kong. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1(3),
pp. 404–427.
[31] APM 2018. Sponsoring change: A guide to the governance aspects of project sponsorship, 2nd ed.
Buckinghamshire: APM Knowledge Specific Interest Group.
[32] Crawford, L. & Brett, C. 2001. Exploring the role of the project sponsor. In Proceedings of the PMI
New Zealand Annual Conference 2001, Project success: Putting it all together. Wellington, New
Zealand: PMINZ.
[33] Bryde, D. 2008. Perceptions of the impact of project sponsorship practices on project success.
International Journal of Project Management, 26(8), pp. 800–809.
[34] Remington, K. 2011. Leading complex projects. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
[35] Van Heerden, F., Steyn, J. & Van Der Walt, D. 2015. Programme management for owner teams: A
practical guide to what you need to know.
[36] West, D. 2010. Project sponsorship: An essential guide for those sponsoring projects within their
organizations. Abingdon: Routledge.
[37] APM. 2009. Sponsoring change: A guide to the governance aspects of project sponsorship, 1st ed.
Buckinghamshire: APM Knowledge Specific Interest Group.
[38] Mayring, P. 2014. Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and
software solution. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173
[39] Saunders, M.N.K., Bristow, A., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. 2019. Understanding research philosophy
and approaches to theory development. In Saunders, M.N.K., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (eds),
Research methods for business students, 8th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education, pp. 128-171.
[40] Kloppenborg, T.J. & Tesch, D. 2015. How executive sponsors influence project success. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 56(3), pp. 27–30.
[41] Vogwell, D. 2003. Stakeholder management. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2003—EMEA,
The Hague, The Netherlands. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
[42] Fahri, J., Biesenthal, C., Pollack, J. & Sankaran, S. 2015. Understanding megaproject success
beyond the project close-out stage. Construction Economics and Building, 15(3), pp. 48–58.
[43] Flyvbjerg, B. 2013. Over budget, over time, over and over again: Managing major projects. In Morris,
P.W.G., Pinto, J.K. and Söderlund, J. (eds), The Oxford handbook of project management, Oxford:
Oxford University Press, pp. 321-344. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199563142.003.0014NV-1 O
[44] Hall, M. & Holt, R. 2002. U.K. public sector project management: A cultural perspective. Public
Performance & Management Review, 25(3), pp. 298-312.
[45] Oshungade, O. & Kruger, D. 2017. A comparative study of causes and effects of project delays and
disruptions in construction projects in the South African construction industry. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Project Management, 7, pp. 13–25.
[46] Steyn, H. & Schnetler, R. 2015. Concurrent projects: How many can you handle? South African
Journal of Industrial Engineering, 26, pp. 96–109.
