Method

Project sponsor (champion)

In French: Sponsor de projet (champion)

The sponsor is the manager who carries an improvement project at the level where trade-offs are made: they open doors, decide priorities and answer for the result to senior management.

What they do, and what they do not

The sponsor does not run the project and does not conduct the analyses: that is the project leader’s role. They step in where the leader has no authority — obtaining time from a department that has none, arbitrating between two priorities carried by two directorates, unblocking access to data.

They validate the scope at the start and the numerical objective, then hold that frame. A project whose scope widens at every review has no active sponsor, whatever the name written on the charter.

They finally answer for the result to their own hierarchy. That is what distinguishes the sponsor from a merely benevolent backer: they have something to lose if the project fails, which guarantees they will take an interest in it beyond the kick-off meeting.

How to choose them

The right sponsor is the one who owns the process concerned, not the highest-ranking person available. A managing director sponsoring a shop-floor project gives prestige to the launch and no arbitration capacity on the questions that will actually arise.

They must also cover the whole scope. A project that crosses three departments and whose sponsor heads only one will run into the other two, and the project leader will spend their time negotiating what nobody can grant them.

Finally, they must have a direct interest in the result. A manager whose indicators improve if the project succeeds makes themselves available without being chased; a sponsor appointed out of courtesy forgets the reviews.

The rhythm of the relationship

The relationship is held through short, regular check-ins, scheduled in advance, rather than summonses in case of difficulty. A meeting scheduled at the end of each phase is enough in most projects, with the possibility of requesting one outside the calendar.

What the sponsor needs to receive comes down to little: where the result stands against the objective, which decisions are waiting for them, and which risks have changed. A detailed presentation of the analyses is a bad sign — it generally indicates that time is being filled rather than a decision sought.

The end of the project is theirs too. They pronounce the closure, make sure the result is held by the process owner, and release the team. A project that is never formally closed keeps consuming attention for nothing.

The common mistakes

Appointing a sponsor without asking them. The case is frequent and shows at the first missed review; a more modest-level sponsor who turns up is better than a prestigious name who does not.

Presenting them with analyses instead of decisions. The available time is short: what is not worded as a question to settle will produce no arbitration.

Waiting for the difficulty to call on them. A sponsor seen only when there is a problem discovers the project at the same time as the obstacle, and their first reaction is legitimately to question the scope.

On the shop floor — Industrial logistics

A stock-out reduction project had the site director as sponsor. Half the causes came from the sales forecasts, outside their authority. Three reviews concluded that "sales should be made aware". The project moved forward only after being re-sponsored jointly, with an objective shared between the two directorates.

The other tools illustrated by this trade: logistics and distribution.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between the sponsor and the project leader?

The project leader drives the work — they facilitate, analyse, propose. The sponsor decides on what exceeds the project leader’s mandate: priorities between departments, means, and acceptance of the result. It is a split of authority, not of competence: an excellent project leader stays stuck without a sponsor, because the obstacles they meet are not technical.

Can a project have several sponsors?

It is sometimes necessary when the process crosses several directorates, provided the objective is shared and written as such. The risk is mutual referral: each waits for the other to decide. It is avoided by designating the one who decides in the last resort, the others remaining committed on the means.

What should be done when the sponsor does not make themselves available?

Say so early, and raise the question of whether the project continues rather than that of the meeting calendar. An absent sponsor almost always signals that the subject is not a priority for them — which is useful information, not a lack of manners. Carrying on without arbitration produces a project that bogs down and discredits the approach for the next ones.

Does the sponsor need to know the method?

It is enough for them to know its sequence and what is expected of them at each step; mastery of the tools is not their role. On the other hand, a sponsor who does not know that solutions come after measurement will ask for an action plan at the first review, and the project will lose what gives it its value.