The 'Emperor’s' New Schedule: Calling Out Sponsor Illusions Before They Sink Your Program.
- Sarah Verity
- Sep 4
- 7 min read
Updated: Sep 8
When the Project Sponsor Wants a Schedule Before the Project Exists. Why You Can’t Coach Capability Into a Vacuum: Structural Safeguards for Sponsor Misfires.
Many of us have stood at this starting line—I know I have. A greenfield project, ready to launch. You’re quietly thrilled to have a clear runway, free from the leftovers and legacy artefacts of someone else’s half-finished initiative cluttering your path. You’re at the initiation phase of a compliance-driven program: no charter, no confirmed scope, no stakeholder alignment, and still knee-deep in the ambiguity of discovery. But that’s okay—because:
Greenfield is a privilege. Not every project gets this kind of clean start.
This is the kind of challenge delivery specialists thrive on—tugging at loose threads to get momentum.
You’re laying the foundational stones that will support everything that comes next.
Then comes the curveball: your project sponsor asks for a fully detailed schedule—completed - with milestones, task owners, and percentage complete of said tasks. Bust based on what? The instinct might be to appease. But as every seasoned program delivery manager knows, producing delivery artefacts without foundational inputs sets the entire initiative on shaky ground, if not the old ‘house built on sandy foundations’.
So when a sponsor demands a delivery schedule before the project even ‘exists’, it’s not just premature—it’s perilous. 'The Emperor’s New Schedule' exposes the illusion of certainty that creeps in when capability gaps go unchallenged and coaching alone can’t close the divide. So then, is it a case of wrong person - wrong seat? This article examines the structural safeguards necessary to safeguard foundational work, reframe misaligned requests, and elevate sponsor engagement from reactive oversight to strategic stewardship. If you’ve ever been caught between governance theatre and delivery reality, this one’s for you.
Diagnosing the Disconnect: Why the ‘Ask’ Emerges
In many cases—including some I’ve personally navigated—this isn’t simply a matter of a sponsor requesting the wrong deliverable at the wrong time. It signals deeper structural and cultural tensions within the program, often compounded by a lack of delivery governance literacy and capability on the sponsor’s side. Those familiar with my approach know what comes next: I’ll ask “why,” then “why” again, and keep going until we’ve surfaced the root cause. This is where the 5 Whys technique becomes indispensable. From a delivery leadership perspective, the most effective way to address this challenge is to interrogate the underlying drivers of the behaviour—then reframe and redirect the ask in a way that preserves delivery integrity and builds sponsor maturity.
1. Pressure to Demonstrate Progress (Without Sequencing Awareness)
Why it happens: Sponsors are often accountable to executive committees, boards, or regulators. The pressure to show visible progress—especially in high-profile or time-sensitive programs—can override delivery logic.
What it causes: Artefacts are requested prematurely, not because they’re decision-ready, but because they serve as visible proof of activity. This fosters a compliance-driven mindset rather than outcome-led governance.
Sponsor’s rationale: “If I can show a roadmap, a benefits register, or a comms plan—even if they’re skeletal—I can reassure stakeholders that we’re not stalled.”
Coaching moment: Instead of requesting artefacts that aren’t yet grounded in validated inputs, sponsors can ask for a progress narrative—a short, strategic update that outlines what’s been achieved, what’s underway, and what’s coming next. This maintains visibility without derailing foundational work.
2. Misunderstanding Delivery Mechanics
Why it happens: Sponsors may not be fluent in project management, Agile, SAFe, or hybrid delivery models. They may assume artefacts are produced early and refined later, equating documentation with progress.
What it causes: Requests for artefacts that are either not feasible (e.g. detailed change impact assessments before solution design) or irrelevant to the current phase.
Sponsor’s rationale: “We need these artefacts to move forward,” without recognising that sequencing and readiness are prerequisites for meaningful content.
Coaching moment: Encourage sponsors to ask for decision framing inputs instead—such as early hypotheses, guiding principles, or stakeholder themes. These are valid precursors to artefacts and help shape direction without forcing premature detail.
Level-up tip: Sponsors can deepen their delivery literacy by engaging in short, targeted briefings on delivery rhythms and artefact sequencing. A 30-minute walkthrough of the delivery lifecycle—with examples of when and why artefacts emerge—can transform how they engage.
3. Governance Immaturity
Why it happens: In programs with evolving or legacy governance structures, there’s often a fixation on artefacts as deliverables rather than enablers of decision-making.
What it causes: Artefacts are produced to satisfy governance gates, even when the underlying decisions haven’t been made. This leads to rework, confusion, and stalled momentum.
Sponsor’s rationale: “We can’t go to the next gate without these documents,” even if the documents don’t reflect real readiness.
Coaching moment: Sponsors can shift the conversation by asking for readiness indicators rather than artefacts. For example: “What decisions are we ready to make, and what’s still in flight?” This reframes governance from document-driven to decision-led.
Level-up tip: Encourage sponsors to participate in governance design workshops or retrospectives. Exposure to how governance frameworks evolve—and how artefacts support rather than drive decisions—builds maturity and confidence.
Reframing the ‘Ask’ Without Derailing Delivery
Here are alternative sponsor requests that maintain visibility and control without compromising delivery integrity:
Instead of asking for... | Ask for... |
A detailed change impact assessment | A summary of emerging change themes |
A full benefits register | A benefits framing canvas or draft logic model |
A comms plan | A stakeholder sentiment snapshot or comms principles |
A solution roadmap | A delivery rhythm overview or high-level milestone map |
In the context of a compliance project—where timing, traceability, and dependencies are paramount—manufacturing premature plans can not only derail delivery, but also invite regulatory risk.
Understanding Schedule Readiness: High-Level vs. Detailed
Type of Schedule | When It’s Appropriate | Purpose |
High-Level Schedule | Post-discovery, with directional scope inputs | Directional forecasting, executive alignment |
Detailed Schedule | After confirmed scope, clear requirements are provided, charter, stakeholders are assigned and sign-off, and Definition of Done is captured and signed off | Sequenced delivery, resourcing, risk tracking |
The Right Response: Strategically Buying Time
If you're able to put these into practice, it becomes less about delay and more about preserving delivery integrity while creating space for alignment, clarity, and smarter decision-making.
1. Reframe the Request
Sponsor’s ask: “I want to see progress.” Your response: “Let’s co-create a progress readiness map—highlighting what’s needed before milestones are meaningful.”
This shifts the narrative from task execution to project maturity without dismissing the sponsor’s concerns.
2. Build a Pre-Schedule Artefact
Develop a Readiness Framework outlining prerequisites for schedule definition:
o Charter drafted, socalised and signed off
o Scope confirmed
o Compliance requirements mapped, agreed and signed off
o Stakeholders aligned, assigned and approved for capacity commitment
o Definition of Done agreed and signed off
Present it visually—show what’s missing and what’s on deck.
3. Offer Interim Touchpoints
Propose a phase-based roadmap: Initiation → Discovery → Mobilisation → Execution
Anchor sponsor engagement in early wins like stakeholder alignment or compliance landscape scans.
Share estimated timeline ranges with clear disclaimers (subject to scope confirmation).
Options if Pressure Persists
Rapid Planning Sprint: Assemble SMEs to generate draft deliverables and test assumptions.
Shadow Planning: Create a non-published working schedule as a scenario model—used internally, not distributed. Whilst not encouraged for the life of ther project, shadow logs can cause unintended consequences, this touch point should only be used internally and scenario model and is not intended to be used ongoing.
Sponsor Education Workshop: Highlight how misaligned delivery sequencing led to rework or regulatory exposure in past programs.
When Coaching Isn’t Enough: Structural Safeguards for Sponsor Misalignment
Sometimes, coaching moments aren’t enough—especially when a sponsor lacks the capability or desire to engage constructively with delivery. In these cases, structural safeguards are essential to protect delivery integrity.
1. Contain the Impact Structurally
Create delivery buffers: Establish a Delivery Leadership Forum or Program Working Group to absorb operational decisions and shield delivery teams from sponsor interference.
Use tiered reporting: Provide sponsors with curated, strategic updates while keeping tactical decisions within empowered delivery governance.
2. Reframe the Sponsor’s Role
Redirect influence: Position the sponsor as a strategic ambassador—championing the program externally, securing funding, or navigating political terrain.
Equip with curated materials: Provide talking points and pre-reads that reinforce delivery logic without requiring deep delivery literacy.
3. Codify Boundaries Through Governance
Decision rights matrices: Clarify who owns what decisions. Examples:
The Delivery team owns the solution design; the sponsor owns the funding approvals
Change lead owns impact assessment; sponsor owns stakeholder endorsement
The Product Owner owns backlog prioritisation; the sponsor owns strategic alignment
Risk lead owns mitigation planning; sponsor owns risk appetite thresholds
Gate criteria and escalation protocols: Make interference visible and addressable through documented governance processes.
4. Escalate with Empathy
Strategic escalation: If interference persists, escalate to the steering committee or executive sponsor using a risk narrative:
“Delivery risk is increasing due to role confusion and decision latency.”
Frame as enablement: Position the issue as a program enablement challenge, not a personal failing.
Conclusion
A detailed schedule is only as accurate as the inputs behind it. Producing one prematurely may satisfy a momentary demand but risks long-term delivery confusion and stakeholder mistrust. A detailed schedule too early can also present as ‘the emperor’s new clothes’, a smokescreen and purely meaningless, as nothing is confirmed or represents reality.
As a program delivery manager, your role is to shield the project from false starts while guiding sponsors toward sound governance. The right time for a schedule is after discovery, chartering, scope, and requirements are signed off, stakeholder alignment is achieved, and a definition of done is signed off —not before. And until then, strategic reframing, visual readiness artefacts, and interim delivery roadmaps serve as effective—and responsible—alternatives.
And when coaching moments fall short—when the sponsor’s capability gap becomes a structural risk rather than a teachable moment—delivery leaders must pivot from persuasion to protection. This isn’t about abandoning the coaching mindset; it’s about recognising when the environment demands more than dialogue. By embedding safeguards, reframing roles, and codifying decision boundaries, we shift from reactive firefighting to proactive enablement. Sponsor capability isn’t a given—it’s a variable. And when that variable threatens delivery integrity, it’s our job to stabilise the system, not just the relationship.
Need Help? If your compliance program needs delivery leadership that prioritises precision, integrity and strategic foresight, let’s connect.
Say Hello at sarah@sarahverity.me.
References
Andersen, H.C., 1837. The Emperor’s New Clothes. Translated by J. Doe. 2020. London: Penguin Classics.
Toyoda, S., 1930s. 5 Whys Technique. Developed as part of the Toyota Production System. Cited in: Ries, E., 2012. The 5 Whys. Harvard Business Review, [online] 7 Feb. Available at: Harvard Business Review – The 5 Whys.
The phrase “house built on sandy foundations” is a metaphor rooted in the Biblical parable of the wise and foolish builders, found in the Gospel of Matthew. The Holy Bible, New International Version, 1978. Matthew 7:24–27.This metaphor is widely used in governance, leadership, and delivery contexts to describe initiatives built without solid foundations—whether that’s clarity of scope, stakeholder alignment, or capability maturity. Within a strategic delivery piece, it’s a powerful image to signal risk and the need for structural integrity.
Comments