But alas, I have to admit that all of this electoral brouhaha has gotten me thinking more about the second installment in our sponsorship series, as we discuss the governance of projects and how we create decision-making bodies and policing authorities. Who really sets policy for our projects? How do we ensure that the voices of our key stakeholders are heard? Is having a single sponsor chosen for their political power akin to creating a dictatorship? Is a sponsor chosen by title in the organization a monarchy? And how does one turn project anarchy into some well-reasoned balance of power?

 

The answer lies in the formation of the Executive Steering Committee. This governing body, typically made up of senior management identified as key stakeholders for the project, can help to eliminate problems created by a weak or dysfunctional sponsor, provide a communication mechanism to senior management and also support the product of the project once the project is formally closed. The problem that we see too often is an ineffective ESC that causes more problems than it solves. Before we explore what it takes to establish an effective and worthwhile ESC, let step back and look at what an ESC really is and what the traditional roles of the organization tend to be. 

 

Like many of the project management roles and methods, the implementation and responsibilities of the ESC vary from organization to organization. In some projects, the ESC is there merely to serve as a committee of stakeholder representatives who meet rarely and only to receive an update on the progress and status of the project. They may make a few demands of the project, but in general, their job is to listen and communicate back to their constituents. In other organizations, the ESC is charged with many more responsibilities:

• providing the resources
• making critical decisions
• establishing the vision for the project
• providing oversight of the project execution
• serving as a change agent in their organization
• approving or rejecting change requests
• defining requirements
• busting barriers
• maintaining the product of the project throughout its lifecycle

 

So you see the definition of the ESC lies somewhere along this continuum. Most projects’ ESCs fall somewhere between these two extremes, and some projects don’t bother with an ESC at all. “But wait,” you’re probably thinking, “this sounds a lot like the role of the project sponsor – do I need both?” Although they have similar roles and responsibilities, the ESC is not designed to be a substitute for a strong and effective sponsor. In many cases, the sponsor will serve as the chair of the committee, having ownership over the proceedings and outcomes. However, with that being said, an ESC is an excellent way to get the support your project needs if you have a sponsor who is less than ideal. If one can’t get the job done, find five who are likely to each provide a little of what you need and work together to make a single sponsor you can live with.

 

The structure of the committee and selection of the members can be challenging. In many cases, these decisions are political and can have an impact on the well-being of your project. Both decisions will depend on the role and function you plan to bestow upon your ESC. For those ESCs designed to oversee project execution and will disband at project closing, the tactical and operational purpose of the ESC will lead you look for the following types of members:

The structure of this type of active, hands-on committee will be important since they have to work together to get things done for the project. If the ESC is supporting and governing a program, or a large project with many varied deliverables, then you may consider having a committee with a series of subcommittees based on subject-matter expertise. For example, a large-scale technology solution implementation may require a subcommittee just to focus on the user interface and issues related to it, while another subcommittee would focus on user training and implementation. Issues that impact all areas would require the entire committee to meet, discuss and decisions, while the function-specific issues may go merely to a subcommittee. The following is an example of an ESC for a large-scale technology project with cross-functional stakeholder groups with a history of silo mentality.

 

If, however, the purpose of your ESC is more on the traditional formality end of the spectrum, where you will not require hands-on participation in making project decisions, mainly just to inform and send them away to serve as ambassadors within their domains, then the organization really doesn’t have the same importance. Pick those with big titles and good communication skills.

 

So what does it take to establish and maintain an ESC that really works for the betterment of the project and its stakeholders? The key to having a worthwhile ESC is making sure that they have a well-defined and communicated purpose. If you don’t need them to actively do anything for your project, get rid of them or call them something else. The ESC is not designed to be just a communication mechanism. You can accomplish the same result with less effort by sending out a project progress report, not taking up an hour of five executives’ time. Those typically designated to be part of the ESC are highly valuable members of management. You need to think of their time as an expensive resource for the company. You need to be able to provide a return on the investment of the time you ask of them.

 

Now that we have a general principle for establishing the structure and purpose of our new Executive Steering Committee, next month we will discuss how to charter the organization for success and troubleshoot some of the most common problems we experience with the ESCs for our projects.