This article presents the emergence and evolution of actors and institutions in a collaborative program from the strategic planning to the execution and delivery phase. The ethnographic study of a collaboration revealed that, while formal regulations are prerequisites for initiating collaborations, further drivers of the interactions between program participants are oriented by path dependency, cultural familiarities, and goal sharing. This article shows that many microdynamics exist among actors and institutions inside the governance structure, co-evolving in parallel with the transition through the program’s phases. There are, however, two main drivers orienting these dynamics: formal regulations and trust.
AdamiV. S.VerschooreJ. R. (2018). Implications of network relations for the governance of complex projects. Project Management Journal, 49(2), 71–88.doi:10.1177/875697281804900205
2.
AdamsJ. R.BarndS. E. (1997). Behavioral implications of the project life cycle. InClelandD. I.KingW. R. (Eds.), Project management handbook (pp.206–230). John Wiley & Sons.
3.
AholaT.RuuskaI.ArttoK.KujalaJ. (2014). What is project governance and what are its origins?International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1321–1332.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.09.005
4.
AlvessonM.SköldbergK. (2017). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research (Third Edition). SAGE Publications.
5.
AnkrahS.Al-TabbaaO. (2015). Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387–408.doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2015.02.003
6.
ArttoK.AholaT.VartiainenV. (2016). From the front end of projects to the back end of operations: Managing projects for value creation throughout the system lifecycle. International Journal of Project Management, 34(2), 258–270.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.05.003
7.
ArttoK.MartinsuoM.GemündenH. G.MurtoaroJ. (2009). Foundations of program management: A bibliometric view. International Journal of Project Management, 27(1), 1–18.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.10.007
8.
BakerL. (2006). Observation: A complex research method. Library Trends, 55(1), 171–189.doi:10.1353/lib.2006.0045
9.
BarleyS. R. (1990). Images of imaging: Notes on doing longitudinal field work. Organization Science, 1(3), 220–247.doi:10.1287/orsc.1.3.220
10.
BarnesT. A.PashbyI. R.GibbonsA. M. (2006). Managing collaborative R&D projects development of a practical management tool. International Journal of Project Management, 24(5), 395–404.
11.
BartunekJ.LouisM. R. (1996). Insider/outsider team research (Vol. 40). SAGE Publications, Inc.
12.
BekkerM. C. (2015). Project governance–The definition and leadership dilemma. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 194, 33–43.doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.117
13.
BekkerMC.SteynH. (2007). Defining ‘project governance’ for large capital projects [Paper presentation]. Paper presented at AFRICON 2007, Windhoek, Namibia, New York, NY: IEEE. 1–13.
14.
BeunenR.van AsscheK. (2013). Contested delineations: Planning, law, and the governance of protected areas. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 45(6), 1285–1301.doi:10.1068/a45284
15.
BeunenR.Van AsscheK.DuineveldM. (2015). The search for evolutionary approaches to governance. InBeunenR.Van AsscheK.DuineveldM. (Eds.), Evolutionary governance theory (pp.3–17). Springer International Publications.
16.
BiesenthalC.WildenR. (2014). Multi-level project governance: Trends and opportunities. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1291–1308.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.06.005
17.
BrockeJv.LippeS. (2015). Managing collaborative research projects: A synthesis of project management literature and directives for future research. International Journal of Project Management, 33(5), 1022–1039.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.02.001
18.
BruneelJ.D’EsteP.SalterA. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39(7), 858–868.doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.006
19.
ChildJ. (2005). Organization: Contemporary principles and practice. Blackwell.
20.
ChronéerD.BergquistB. (2012). Managerial complexity in process industrial R&D projects: A Swedish study. Project Management Journal, 43(2), 21–36.
21.
CrawfordL.Cooke-DaviesT.HobbsB.LabuschagneL.RemingtonK.ChenP. (2008). Governance and support in the sponsoring of projects and programs. Project Management Journal, 39(S1), S43–S55.doi:10.1002/pmj.20059
22.
DerakhshanR.TurnerR.ManciniM. (2019). Project governance and stakeholders: A literature review. International Journal of Project Management, 37(1), 98–116.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.10.007
23.
EnbergC. (2012). Enabling knowledge integration in competitive R&D projects—The management of conflicting logics. International Journal of Project Management, 30(7), 771–780.
24.
EngwallM. (2003). No project is an island: Linking projects to history and context. Research Policy, 32(5), 789–808.doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00088-4
25.
EskerodP.BlichfeldtB. S. (2005). Managing team entrees and withdrawals during the project life cycle. International Journal of Project Management, 23(7), 495–503.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.12.005
26.
FontanaR.GeunaA.MattM. (2006). Factors affecting university–industry R&D projects: The importance of searching, screening and signalling. Research Policy, 35(2), 309–323.
27.
GoetzJ. P.LeCompteM. D. (1981). Ethnographic research and the problem of data reduction. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 12(1), 51–70.doi:10.1525/aeq.1981.12.1.05x1283i
28.
HaqS. U.GuD.LiangC.AbdullahI. (2019). Project governance mechanisms and the performance of software development projects: Moderating role of requirements risk. International Journal of Project Management, 37(4), 533–548.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.02.008
29.
KingW. R.ClelandD. (1997). Life‐cycle management. In D. Cleland & W. King (Eds.),Project management handbook (pp.191–205). Wiley Online.
30.
LeeY. S. (2000). The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: An empirical assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 25(2), 111–133.doi:10.1023/A:1007895322042
31.
LiY.LuY.MaL.KwakY. H. (2018). Evolutionary governance for mega-event projects (MEPs): A case study of the world expo 2010 in China. Project Management Journal, 49(1), 57–78.doi:10.1177/875697281804900105
32.
LundinR. A.SteinthórssonR. S. (2003). Studying organizations as temporary. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 19(2), 233–250.doi:10.1016/S0956-5221(02)00006-4
33.
LundmarkE.KlofstenM. (2014). Linking individual-level knowledge sourcing to project-level contributions in large R&D-driven product-development projects. Project Management Journal, 45(6), 73–82.
34.
LundriganC. P.GilN. A.PuranamP. (2015). The (under) performance of mega-projects: A meta-organizational perspective. InAcademy of Management proceedings (Vol. 2015, No. 1, p.11299). Academy of Management.doi:10.5465/ambpp.2015.222
35.
LycettM.RassauA.DansonJ. (2004). Programme management: A critical review. International Journal of Project Management, 22(4), 289–299.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2003.06.001
36.
MaanenJ. V.Van MaanenJ. (1979). The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 539–550.doi:10.2307/2392360
37.
MillerR.HobbsB. (2005). Governance regimes for large complex projects. Project Management Journal, 36(3), 42–50.doi:10.1177/875697280503600305
38.
MiterevM.EngwallM.JerbrantA. (2016). Exploring program management competences for various program types. International Journal of Project Management, 34(3), 545–557.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.07.006
39.
Molina-MoralesF. X.Martínez-FernándezM. T. (2010). Social networks: Effects of social capital on firm innovation. Journal of Small Business Management, 48(2), 258–279.doi:10.1111/j.1540-627X.2010.00294.x
40.
MooreF. (2011). Holistic ethnography: Studying the impact of multiple national identities on post-acquisition organizations. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5), 654–671.doi:10.1057/jibs.2011.11
MüllerR.GlücklerJ.AubryM. (2013). A relational typology of project management offices. Project Management Journal, 44(1), 59–76.doi:10.1002/pmj.21321
43.
MüllerR.LecoeuvreL. (2014). Operationalizing governance categories of projects. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1346–1357.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.04.005
44.
MüllerR.PemselS.ShaoJ. (2014). Organizational enablers for governance and governmentality of projects: A literature review. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1309–1320.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.007
45.
MüllerR. (2017). Governance and governmentality for projects: Enablers, practices and consequences. (R. Müller, Ed.). Routledge.
46.
NishimuraJ.OkamuroH. (2018). Internal and external discipline: The effect of project leadership and government monitoring on the performance of publicly funded R&D consortia. Research Policy, 47(5), 840–853.
47.
NomakuchiT.TakahashiM. (2015). A study about project management for industry-university cooperation dilemma. Procedia Computer Science, 64, 47–54.doi:10.1016/j.procs.2015.08.462
48.
OECD. (2004). The OECD principles of corporate governance. OECD Publishing.
49.
PartingtonD.PellegrinelliS.YoungM. (2005). Attributes and levels of programme management competence: An interpretive study. International Journal of Project Management, 23(2), 87–95.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.06.004
50.
PellegrinelliS. (2002). Shaping context: The role and challenge for programmes. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 229–233.doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00073-4
51.
PellegrinelliS.PartingtonD.HemingwayC.MohdzainZ.ShahM. (2007). The importance of context in programme management: An empirical review of programme practices. International Journal of Project Management, 25(1), 41–55.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.06.002
52.
PellegrinelliS. (2011). What’s in a name: Project or programme?International Journal of Project Management, 29(2), 232–240.
53.
PerkmannM.KingZ.PavelinS. (2011). Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on university engagement with industry. Research Policy, 40(4), 539–552.doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.01.007
54.
PerkmannM.NeelyA.WalshK. (2011). How should firms evaluate success in university–industry alliances? A performance measurement system. R&D Management, 41(2), 202–216.
55.
PertuzéJ.CalderE.GreitzerE.LucasW. (2010). Best practices for industry-university research collaborations. MIT Sloan Management Review, 51(4), 82–91.
56.
Project Management Institute. (2017a). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide) – Sixth edition. Author.
57.
Project Management Institute. (2017b). The standard for program management – Fourth edition. Author.
58.
QiuY.ChenH.ShengZ.ChengS. (2019). Governance of institutional complexity in megaproject organizations. International Journal of Project Management, 37(3), 425–443.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.02.001
59.
RuuskaI.AholaT.ArttoK.LocatelliG.ManciniM. (2011). A new governance approach for multi-firm projects: Lessons from Olkiluoto 3 and Flamanville 3 nuclear power plant projects. International Journal of Project Management, 29(6), 647–660.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.10.001
60.
SánchezA. M.PerezM. P. (2002). R&D project efficiency management in the Spanish industry. International Journal of Project Management, 20(7), 545–560.
61.
SandersonJ. (2012). Risk, uncertainty and governance in megaprojects: A critical discussion of alternative explanations. International Journal of Project Management, 30(4), 432–443.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.11.002
62.
SantoroM. D.BierlyP. E. (2006). Facilitators of knowledge transfer in university-industry collaborations: A knowledge-based perspective. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53(4), 495–507.doi:10.1109/TEM.2006.883707
63.
SaundersM.LewisP.ThornhillA. (2016). Research methods for business students (7th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
64.
SeppoM.LillesA. (2012). Indicators measuring university-industry cooperation. Discussions on Estonian Economic Policy, 20(1), 204–225.
65.
ShaoJ.MüllerR. (2011). The development of constructs of program context and program success: A qualitative study. International Journal of Project Management, 29(8), 947–959.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.02.003
66.
ThiryM. (2004). “For DAD”: A programme management life-cycle process. International Journal of Project Management, 22(3), 245–252.doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(03)00064-4
67.
TurnerJ. R.MüllerR. (2003). On the nature of the project as a temporary organization. International Journal of Project Management, 21(1), 1–8.doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00020-0
68.
TurnerR.MüllerR. (2017). The governance of organizational project management. InSankaranS.MüllerR.DrouinN. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of organizational project management (pp.73–91). Cambridge University Press.
69.
Van AsscheK.BeunenR.DuineveldM. (2013). Evolutionary governance theory: An introduction. Springer Science & Business Media.
70.
van den EndeL.van MarrewijkA. (2014). The ritualization of transitions in the project life cycle: A study of transition rituals in construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 32(7), 1134–1145.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.02.007
71.
van MarrewijkA.YbemaS.SmitsK.CleggS.PitsisT. (2016). Clash of the titans: Temporal organizing and collaborative dynamics in the Panama Canal megaproject. Organization Studies, 37(12), 1745–1769.doi:10.1177/0170840616655489
72.
WangH.LiuY.XiongW.SongJ. (2019). The moderating role of governance environment on the relationship between risk allocation and private investment in PPP markets: Evidence from developing countries. International Journal of Project Management, 37(1), 117–130.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.10.008
73.
WelchC.PiekkariR.PlakoyiannakiE.Paavilainen-MäntymäkiE. (2011). Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5), 740–762.doi:10.1057/jibs.2010.55
74.
YanowD. (2006). 27 qualitative-interpretive methods in policy research. InFischerF.MillerG. J. (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis (pp.405–416). Taylor & Francis.
75.
YbemaS.YanowD.WelsH.KamsteegF. (2009). Organizational ethnography: Studying the complexities of everyday life. Sage, .
76.
ZhaiZ.AholaT.LeY.XieJ. (2017). Governmental governance of megaprojects: The case of EXPO 2010 Shanghai. Project Management Journal, 48(1), 37–50.doi:10.1177/875697281704800103
