I think it difficult to judge which one is more important. The investor is the person who supports the budget for the project, and the manager is the person who manages the project to keep it going. The project will never be successful without either one of them.
However, if I have to pick only one person, I think the manager is more important. If the project is not managed properly, even a large investment will run out of budget. Conversely, if managed well, a successful project can be achieved with a small budget.

@wonbum-sohn I think you make a great point about how a good manager can make a big difference. however I still believe that the investor is still more important. This is because I have had first hand experience with how important it is to have funding for your project to ensure it can run smoothly. Delays in funding can grind the whole project to a halt since you will not have access to important tools and materials needed for the completion of the project. Meanwhile a team members do not necessarily need a manager as long as the maintain good communication with one another. Having a manager with no funding wont get you anywhere but having funding with no manager, while maybe less efficient than with a manager can still complete the goal.

Investors usually have expectations in terms of how they want the resources they are providing to be used and it is the managers responsibility to make sure that they coordinate with the team in order to meet those expectations and to keep investors happy. As indicated by @wonbum-sohn, if a manager is not present to coordinate with their team to schedule tasks and map out critical paths and to oversee the project to completion, then the resources provided by investors will not be optimized/used efficiently. However, without the resources a project may not even be possible in the first place but managers may come up with solutions for working on small budget. What you have proposed seems like a lose-lose situation, but depending on the project there are less risks with not having a manager rather than investors and vice versa. I think it is more important to have resources to work with as opposed to oversight when first starting out but as the company grows its easier for the company to sustain itself and not need investors, unless the company is always trying to be at the forefront of innovation. Does anyone agree or disagree with my claim?

Both are equally as important, however if one option had to be chosen I believe the manager is more important. A good manager can effectively utilize company resources in order to complete project on time and correctly. An investor is vital to any project but at the end of the day its just supplying the funding for others to complete the work. An inefficient manager can waste investor money leaving a project incomplete while the investors are left empty handed. No amount of funding can override the decisions of poor management. This is why before seeking investors for a project its imperative to have a clear direction within the project team.

I agree with @anthonynjit in that both are very important with the project manager edging out the stakeholder for importance. @anthonynjit raises a really great point about "No amount of funding can override the decisions of poor management." Since the project manager has a direct relationship to the progress of the project, the project manager really dictates how promptly the project can be finished. The project manager is also responsible for putting out any fires that may arise and being the key person that the team looks at for guidance.  In comparison, the stakeholder provides the funding for the project. Nothing can be done without either, however since the project manager has a more hands on role in the project, I think that the project manager is more important than the stakeholder.

Does anyone else agree or disagree?

Thanks,

Matt

I personally feel that yes while investors are important for funding and direction - managers are responsible for the execution. You will not have a successful project without a successful manager. You may have a lot of stakeholders and investors in the project but it will fail without anyone to lead the team and give firm actions and directions. Being in a manager role, I found the value in being able to give direction and bring a project to fruition, while investors may have some input but the work comes in the execution.

@njq3 I agree with you on this. Managers are the ones guiding their teams to be successful in completing a task. They are the last line of defense before the project gets submitted to the investors so I personally think managers have a huge responsibility when executing a project. On the other hand, investors play an important role because they fund and provide an outline of what they are looking for in the project, but I personally think the project managers play a very important role when completing a project.

In terms of promptness, a manager is far more important. Managers are hands on in control of what happens within a project. Investors provide monetary funds but tend to be mostly hands off. It is not their decisions as to how a project is organized or run throughout the duration of project work. They may be involved in design making and have some outside influence, but managers do the heavy lifting to make sure a project is met before the deadline. Managers also have to identify risks, solve operational problems, and adjust plans when problems arise. These decisions directly affect if a project stays on schedule. Investors are still important but their role is less involved in day to day interactions.

While there is no objective precedence to managers over investors and vice versa, I do believe that managers have a tangible and paramount impact to the completion of a project. The scope of a project encompasses many deadlines, objectives, and key stakeholders who oversee the project, which influences the progression and development of the project. Managers are important in ensuring that the project development progresses as smoothly as possible while supporting their team members in undergoing the technical work and manpower. Communication between team members, project managers, and stakeholders is of high importance, and managers are key in bridging these gaps.

I think that managers and stakeholders are both important to a project, however when it comes to completing a project promptly, managers play the more critical role. Investors provide the funding and resources needed to begin a project, while managers are responsible for the coordination that keeps a project moving forward. Managers assign tasks, allocate resources, monitor project progress, and address any issues that could cause delays. For example, in the medical device industry, investors provide the funding for research, development, and testing, but the project manager ensures that each phase of the design control process is completed on schedule. Even if unlimited funding is available from investors, a project could still fall behind schedule without strong project management.

@mmd55 You definitely bring up an interesting point about the relative importance of resources vs. management oversight in a project's early stages. While having funding or other resources is definitely and obviously required to initiate many projects, effective management makes the key difference that enables the effective deployment of the aforementioned resources. Without coordination, I know of and have experience in teams where work is duplicated, deadlines are missed, or there is more failure to identify dependencies between tasks. Thus, a manager's role is in organizing priorities, setting milestones, and maintaining effective communication that can prevent inefficiencies that may waste resources available. Thus, even projects with strong financial backing may struggle without structured leadership.  

However, at the same time, I do agree that in smaller/early-stage teams (e.g., startups) formal management structures may not be critical, as individuals take on multiple roles and collaborate informally. Thus, in such cases, building the capital and collecting the resources needed to develop prototypes, conduct testing, or develop products may be more of an urgent need. Eventually, as such a project grows, becomes more complex, and involves more stakeholders, then structured management may need to be phased in. Is there a set stage in a company’s growth where management oversight becomes more critical than access to funding/resources, or do both always need to develop at the same pace?

In terms of completing a project promptly, I believe the obvious answer is the manager. They are in charge of ensuring all tasks are being completed and that deadlines are being met. They are responsible for the overall success of the project. Managers are dealing with the project every day, while some stakeholders may be sitting back and just asking for some overall updates. 

It is important to generate a great product for the stakeholders since they are the ones investing in the project. However, in order for a project to be completed promptly, managers have much more oversight and control of the day to day tasks and timeline. 

Do you think there are situations where stakeholders might actually have more influence on completing a project on time than the manager?