There are three senior VPs on a project when there only needs to be one. A few attempts have been made to explain to the trio that there only needs to be one SVP on the project and the others can be primary stakeholders, but they are not buying it. The mindset is, "I'm not eating this entire lunch!"
Can I ask what you all would do in this scenario? 3 SVPs who do not want to be fully responsible for a project. By the way, they are driving the project team nuts. How do I reign them in? What is going on with the trio? What am I missing? This is one of those stakeholder issues where I feel like I don't have the past experience or expertise to handle. I'm ready to send them all to the corner for an extended timeout. Any feed back would be great. It's too early in the year for me to be pulling my hair out :-). Thanks for reading! Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Dear Erikka
Interesting your question
Thanks for sharing
Who is the project sponsor?
If none of the VPs want to be a project sponsor you are in a dead end :-)
All projects must have a sponsor
...
1 reply by Erikka Cullum
Jan 06, 2020 12:43 PM
Erikka Cullum
...
This is how I've been feeling!
Saving Changes...
Robin GoodmanCommunications Manager| Mitsubishi Chemical Houston, Tx, United States
Erikka, I have a suggestion to help spur them to decide which one of them should take point as project sponsor while the others remain stakeholders. What are the primary goals of the project? Who is the project's target audience? Which one of the three SVPs will be most affected by the project outcome--or will they share equally in the result? Or which one of the SVPs is most clearly connected to the target audience? If it's all equal, then what are some other parameters you can use to narrow the field? I think you see where I'm going with these questions; there are obviously several more you could ask to help determine things. My recommendation is that you work this out for yourself first, as it will help you make an informed decision about which one should be the project sponsor. Then, when you present it to them, they can connect to the logic you present and hopefully agree to your proposal about which one should be project sponsor. However, does the project sponsor need to be closely tied to who is actually paying for the project, or how the costs will be broken up? If so, that may be a nuance that hasn't been made clear; or perhaps it has no relevance since this is an HR project? However, I've found that knowing this helps determine who needs to be the sponsor. Just a few cents from the Editorial Gallery nonetheless.
...
1 reply by Erikka Cullum
Jan 06, 2020 12:46 PM
Erikka Cullum
...
Hi Robin, thank you! This is a new project that was given to me and I know in the back of my mind that I needed to start from scratch in some areas to flesh out where there are obvious gaps in scope, resources, stakeholders and comms. These are great questions. I didn't think about how has the most proximity to the sponsor! That's a good one. Thanks again.
Dear Erikka
Interesting your question
Thanks for sharing
Who is the project sponsor?
If none of the VPs want to be a project sponsor you are in a dead end :-)
All projects must have a sponsor
This is how I've been feeling!
...
1 reply by Luis Branco
Jan 06, 2020 1:11 PM
Luis Branco
...
Dear Erikka:
Here in Portugal there is a practice.
"When you want to resolve a situation, appoint a guardian.
When you want a situation to be postponed, appoint a committee "
What happens if something in the project goes wrong?
The 3 VP will spend time in the "push game" responsibility.
What happens to the project manager?
When the sea hits the rock ...
Put another way (In my opinion)
Do not proceed with the project until you have the project charter with the perfectly identified sponsor
Erikka, I have a suggestion to help spur them to decide which one of them should take point as project sponsor while the others remain stakeholders. What are the primary goals of the project? Who is the project's target audience? Which one of the three SVPs will be most affected by the project outcome--or will they share equally in the result? Or which one of the SVPs is most clearly connected to the target audience? If it's all equal, then what are some other parameters you can use to narrow the field? I think you see where I'm going with these questions; there are obviously several more you could ask to help determine things. My recommendation is that you work this out for yourself first, as it will help you make an informed decision about which one should be the project sponsor. Then, when you present it to them, they can connect to the logic you present and hopefully agree to your proposal about which one should be project sponsor. However, does the project sponsor need to be closely tied to who is actually paying for the project, or how the costs will be broken up? If so, that may be a nuance that hasn't been made clear; or perhaps it has no relevance since this is an HR project? However, I've found that knowing this helps determine who needs to be the sponsor. Just a few cents from the Editorial Gallery nonetheless.
Hi Robin, thank you! This is a new project that was given to me and I know in the back of my mind that I needed to start from scratch in some areas to flesh out where there are obvious gaps in scope, resources, stakeholders and comms. These are great questions. I didn't think about how has the most proximity to the sponsor! That's a good one. Thanks again. Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Jan 06, 2020 12:43 PM
Replying to Erikka Cullum
...
This is how I've been feeling!
Dear Erikka:
Here in Portugal there is a practice.
"When you want to resolve a situation, appoint a guardian.
When you want a situation to be postponed, appoint a committee "
What happens if something in the project goes wrong?
The 3 VP will spend time in the "push game" responsibility.
What happens to the project manager?
When the sea hits the rock ...
Put another way (In my opinion)
Do not proceed with the project until you have the project charter with the perfectly identified sponsor
...
1 reply by Erikka Cullum
Jan 07, 2020 12:39 PM
Erikka Cullum
...
Luis, I love this! Thank you.
"When you want to resolve a situation, appoint a guardian.
When you want a situation to be postponed, appoint a committee "
Saving Changes...
George JucanManaging Partner| Organizational Perfomance Enablers NetworkWoodbridge, Ontario, Canada
Some additional thoughts, in addition to Robin’s advice regarding determining which one has closest proximity to the project – a.k.a. who’s got most to gain or lose, who will be most impacted (+ or -) if this project goes off the rails.
In my experience, this behavior comes from one of the following potential root causes:
1. None of the SVPs wants the responsibility alone because they are afraid it will fail, and they don’t want to bear full responsibility (and have their reputations tarnished by the failure).
2. Even if they may want to act as The Sponsor, they do not want to upset the others that may perceive the move as pushing them aside to collect the laurels by him/her-self.
The first step is to determine what is their real attitude about the project, what they truly believe and not what they say. One method I use for this is to trigger a min-crisis to see how they react – either they take the opportunity to run for the hills, or they jump in to help to get past it.
You mentioned that requirements were incomplete and other issues, you can use that to propose them to postpone the project and fist do an assessment concluded with a decision point if the project should proceed or not. If they say “don’t worry, we’ll figure it out” they are supportive, if their reaction is “great idea, let’s take a step back and see if this is needed / we’re ready for this / it’s a good idea to proceed” then they are not convinced that the project will succeed.
It should be obvious that the most supportive is the one you want as Sponsor, and you’ll need to address the worry about upsetting the others. If none of them is supportive use the “assessment” to paint a dark picture and kill the project – it will fail, and not only it will be bad for the organization but for you as well as the PM responsible for it.
Now, if you have at least 1 supportive SVP that does not want to upset the others by taking charge, you need to influence the other 2 to delegate him/her as the Sponsor, with them in a supportive role. In my experience, the best way is to use 1:1 discussions (informal the best) to plant ideas such as “you’re so busy already, may want to let someone else to take the lead – how about X as he/she’s most impacted by this?” or “you have a great strategic perspective, may want to let X deal with the day-to-day so you don’t get bogged down in details”.
If the other 2 propose him/her to take the lead, the supportive SVP will have no further reluctance of assuming the lead and become the Sponsor – and now you should be in a good position to get going.
Hope it helps!
George Jucan Saving Changes...
Thomas WalentaGlobal Project Economy ExpertHackenheim, Germany
Erikka, I see it is a problem, could it be an opportunity?
I myself worked for some years with 3 sponsors / managers. It was my most autonomous time. Each sponsor had his own objective and so they let me decide which one to follow at a given decision.
A recent project of a client went yellow because funding was not sufficient after replanning. The sponsor/funder was not able to increase the budget. We found a 2nd sponsor with interest in the project, adapted the scope for him and he funded the necessary gap. win-win.
Was recently asked about ways to make PMOs more resilient. One idea was to have 3 sponsors, so if one looses interest you are not doomed.
Yes, in any case it adds to the need of stakeholder engagement. But it is worth it in many cases.
Do not fight the system, use it. Saving Changes...
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten AssociatesNew Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Erikka
There is great amount of feedback here. I suggest you do cost benefit analysis and present it to them:
Budget and Cost of having 3 SVP’s vs Added Value
RK
...
1 reply by Thomas Walenta
Jan 07, 2020 8:07 AM
Thomas Walenta
...
Rami,
think this is a dangerous approach.
Normally SVPs do not charge hours to a project budget, so their participation is for free for the project.
Having an opinion on the organization's ROI is no business of a project manager and I would regard it as overstepping and pretension.
Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
I am facing this situations for each initiative including sometimes more than three are involved and no problem with that, just in our case. Mainly they are part of Ster Co team and they must help us to move forward in critical decisions of the project. So, in my case, before the project exists (that is an activity performed mainly by the BRM/Business Analyst role) and at the very begining of the project (Project kickoff included) I put very clear which will be their responsabilities including it they must participate in by-weekly meetings. Saving Changes...
Sripriya NarayanasamyAuthor, Say Yes to Project Success| Director, KeyResultzChennai, Tamilnadu, India
Hi Erikka,
Like Rami has suggested, Cost-benefit analysis could be better
Community Champion
