This paper investigates how the interface between governance and project management works for public projects. It describes governance frameworks, analyzes embedded governance principles, and discusses the consequences. Based on an initial literature study giving theoretical underpinning, a characterization of frameworks is developed and used to investigate three public-investment-project governance frameworks in Norway and the United Kingdom. This gives a systematic comparison of framework scope, structure, and embedded principles, and shows the differences between the frameworks and elements, despite the stated purposes being the same: increasing value for money and better use of public spending. The analysis shows the frameworks have to be politically and administratively well anchored. A case study particularly looking into cost and time illustrates how the framework influences the project through scrutiny. The analysis shows the governance frameworks are important in securing transparency and control and clarifies the role of sponsor. This work will be useful in establishing frameworks in other contexts and should be helpful in working with governance of major public projects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbbottK. W., & SnidaiD. (2001). International ‘standards’ and international governance. Journal of European Public Policy, 8, 345–370.
2.
AminA., & HausnerJ. (Eds.). (1997). Beyond market and hierarchy: Interactive governance and social complexity.Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
3.
ArttoK., KujaiaJ., DietrichP., & MartinsuoP. (2007). What is project strategy? EURAM 2007 conference in Paris. International Journal of Project Management, 26(1), 4–12.
4.
Association for Project Management (APM). (2002). Directing change; A guide to governance of project management. Available at http://www.apm.org.uk.
5.
Bemelmans-VidecM.-L., RistR.C., & VedungE. (1998). Carrots, sticks and sermons. Policy instruments and their evaluation.New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
6.
BergP., AndersonK., 0stbyL.-E., LillebyS., StryvoldS., HolandK., (1999). Styring av statlige investeringer. Sluttrapport fra styrings-gruppen for prosjektet for styring av statlige investeringer. Finansdepartementet.
7.
BushT., JohnsenE., KlausenK. K., & VaneboJ. O. (2005). Modernisering av offentlig sektor; Utfordringer, metoder og dilemmaer (2nd ed.). Universitetsforlaget.
8.
CarverJ. (2001). A theory of corporate governance: Finding a new balance for boards and their CEOs by corporate board member. Retrieved June 26, 2008, from http://www.boardmember.com/
9.
ChristensenT. (2007). The Norwegian front-end governance regime of major public investment projects—A theoretically based analysis and evaluation (Preliminary version of Concept Research Programme report).
10.
ChristensenT., & LœgreidP. (2001). New public management: The transformation of ideas and practice.Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
11.
ClarkeT. (2004). Theories of governance—Reconceptualizing corporate governance theory after the Enron experience. In ClarkeT. (Ed.), Theories of corporate governance: The philosophical foundations of corporate governance (pp. 1–30). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
12.
DetomasiD. A. (2006). International regimes: The case of western corporate governance. International Studies Review, 8, 225–251.
13.
DowneyW. G. (1969). Report of the steering group on development cost engineering.London: Ministry of Technology.
14.
DunleavyP. (1985). Bureaucrats, budgets, and the growth of the state: Reconstructing an instrumental model. British Journal of Political Science, 15, 299–328.
15.
EdenC., AckermannF., & WilliamsT. (2005). The amoebic growth of project costs. Project Management Journal, 36(2), 15–27.
16.
EdenC., & HuxhamC. (2006). Researching organizations using action research. In CleggS., HardyC., NordW. & LawrenceT. (Eds.), Handbook of organisation studies (2nd ed., pp. 388–408). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
17.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Research, 14, 532–550.
18.
FlyvbjergB. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.
19.
FlyvbjergB., BruzeliusN., & RothengatterW. (2003). Megaprojects and risk: An anatomy of ambition.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20.
GareisR. (1990). Management by projects.Vienna: Manz Publishing.
21.
GershonP. (1999, April). Review of civil procurement in central government.London: HM Treasury.
22.
GershonP. (2004). Releasing resources to the front line—Independent review of public sector efficiency.Report to HM Treasury, July 2004. London: The Stationery Office.
23.
HarphamA., & KippenbergerT. (2005). Staking a lot on programme and project management. Paper at the 19th IPMA World Conference, New Delhi, India.
24.
HM Treasury. (2007, January). Transforming government procurement. Retrieved June 26, 2008, from http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk
25.
HowardC. (2007). Experiences of implementing gateway reviews. Presentation at the annual conference of the APM Special Interest Group on Earned Value Management.
26.
JacobyS. (2005). Corporate governance and society. Challenge, 48(4), 69–87.
27.
JonesC., HeserlyW. S., & BorgattiS. P. (1997). A general theory of network governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 22, 911–945.
28.
MagnussenO. M., & SamsetK. (2005). Successful megaprojects: Ensuring quality at entry. Paper presented at the Euram 2005 conference in Munich, Germany.
29.
MarchJ. G., & OlsenJ. P. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations.Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.
30.
MarchJ. G., & OlsenJ. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organization basis of politics.New York: Free Press.
31.
MeyerJ. W., & RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.
32.
MillerR., & HobbsB. (2005). Governance regimes for large complex projects. Project Management Journal, 36(3), 42–50.
33.
MillerR., & LessardD. R. (2000). The strategic management of large engineering projects: Shaping institutions, risks and governance.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34.
Ministry of Defence (MoD). (2006). Enabling acquisition change: An examination of the Ministry of Defence's ability to undertake through life capability management.A report by the Enabling Acquisition Change Team Leader, June 2006 (the McKane Report). London: Ministry of Defence.
35.
Ministry of Defence (MoD). (2007). Acquisition operating framework. Retrieved June 26, 2008, from http://www.aof.mod.uk/index.htm
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2004). OECD principles of corporate governance 2004. Retrieved June 26, 2008, from http://www.oecd.org.
43.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2005). Modernising government, the way forward. Retrieved June 26, 2008, from http://www.oecd.org.
44.
O'SullivanM. (2003). The political economy of comparative corporate governance. Review of International Political Economy, 10(1), 23–72.
45.
PatelD. (2007, April). Why executives should care about project governance; What your peers are doing about it. PM World Today, 9(4).
46.
PeltzmanS. (1998). The economic theory of regulation after a decade of deregulation. In BaldwinR., ScottC. & HoodC. (Eds.), A reader on regulation (pp. 93–130). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
47.
PollittC., & BouckaertG. (2000). Public management reform—A comparative analysis.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
48.
Project Management Institute (PMI). (2004). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide)–third edition. Newtown Square, PA: Author.
49.
SimonH. A. (1957). Administrative behaviour.New York: Macmillan.
50.
ThatcherM. (2005). The third force? Independent regulatory agencies and elected politicians in Europe. Governance, 18, 347–374.
51.
TurnerJ. R. (2006). Towards a theory of project management: The nature of the project governance and project management. Editorial. International Journal of Project Management, 24, 93–95.
52.
WilliamsonO. E. (1979). Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. Journal of Law and Economics, 22, 233–261.
53.
WinchG. M. (2001). Governing the project process: A conceptual framework. Construction Management and Economics, 19, 799–808.
