Special Issue: Project Governance: Reflections on the Past and Suggestions for the Future

Abstract

Introduction

The call for papers for this special issue aimed at expanding the diversity of perspectives on research regarding the governance of projects, a topic that has garnered increased interest from academics and practitioners over the past two decades. The nine articles included in this special issue, authored by prominent project scholars, honor the work of Emeritus Professor Ralf Müller, who has written several seminal articles and books on project governance (Müller, 2009; Müller, 2017; Müller et al., 2023) and enriched the diversity and breadth of perspectives on the topic. These articles provide opportunities to reflect on the past and offer suggestions for future research on governance of projects.

In the introduction to the Research Handbook on the Governance of Projects, Müller et al. (2023) point out that while governance has gained popularity in management and social sciences in recent decades, “a wide variety of contemporary endeavors are nowadays looked at not only as activity but also an object of governance (p. 1).” The authors of this special issue also note that the expanding interest in governance has spread beyond management and the social sciences. The various concepts associated with the study of project governance have followed this trend, showing continued interest in exploring new areas and challenges.

In this guest editorial introduction, we present a brief review of how project governance has evolved over time and how it has contributed to the field of project management research.

According to Müller (2017, p. 14) “Governance provides the value system, structures, processes, and policies that foster transparency, accountability, responsibility, and fairness to allow projects to achieve organizational objectives and foster implementation that is in the best interest of all stakeholders, internal and external, and the corporation itself.” Project governance as governance of temporary organizations is expected to be aligned with corporate governance in organizations or rules of conduct set out by the organization that authorizes a project such as a government. Governance in projects is the responsibility of people who are assigned to steer a project, such as the project board or steering committee, and the project sponsor who champions the project often has an important role to play in these bodies to liaise between the project management team and the top management or public officials. Too and Weaver (2014, p. 1385) differentiate between the roles of the people who govern a project and manage a project by stating that: “The governance system defines the structures used by the organization, allocates rights and responsibilities within those structures and requires assurance that management is operating effectively and properly within the defined structures. The role of management is to manage the organization within the framework defined by the governance system; this applies particularly to the governance and management of projects.” The term management of projects, which was coined by prominent project management scholar Professor Peter Morris (Davies, 2024) used in the definition by Too and Weaver (2014), nowadays includes portfolio management, program management, and project management, which are used in combination to deliver organizational strategies through projects (Morris & Jameison, 2005). The definition of project governance from a strategic perspective has taken this evolution into account and is reflected in a more recent definition of project governance as “Organizational project governance coexists within the corporate governance framework and is the means by which individual projects, groups of projects (such as programs or portfolios), and the totality of all projects in an organization are directed and controlled and managers are held accountable for the conduct and performance of them (Müller 2017, p. 14).”

Drouin et al. (2024) elaborate further that the academic project management community was introduced to governance in the late 1990s through Turner and Keegan (1999), who highlighted the versatility of organizations and the implementation of governance through different approaches (Müller et al., 2023). Since then, governance research has gained significant traction among scholars, as well as practitioners, evolving from the governance of single projects (project governance) to groups of projects (governance of projects), to all project-related activities within a firm (organizational project management), and further to the polycentric governance model (Monkelbaan, 2019). In that regard, we have seen development of a narrow focus on project governance to a broader concern of the governance of projects.

Recent studies have, for instance, expanded these perspectives to include megaproject governance, interorganizational networks for projects, knowledge governance in projects, and project-related decision-making processes (Müller et al., 2023). The evolution from project governance to governance of projects, polycentric governance, and other governance perspectives represents a crucial area of contemporary project governance discourse. As organizations confront increasingly complex and interconnected projects, establishing effective governance structures becomes paramount. At the core of project governance lies the establishment of frameworks that guide decision-making, communication, and accountability.

Turner and Keegan (1999) were seminal contributors to this domain, emphasizing the importance of governance structures in ensuring project success. Their research highlights the need for adaptable governance frameworks that can evolve alongside the dynamic nature of projects. Similarly, Müller (2009, 2017) has made significant contributions by exploring the evolutionary nature of governance. He argues that project governance fosters environments conducive to success by prioritizing resources, identifying at-risk projects, and determining whether to rescue, suspend, or terminate initiatives. Müller’s insights underscore that project governance is not static but a dynamic concept that adapts to the evolving demands of organizational practices.

Crawford (2007) and Helms (2008) expanded the scope of project governance research by emphasizing the strategic alignment of project governance with organizational goals. Crawford’s (2007) work stresses that effective governance integrates projects into an organization’s overarching strategy rather than treating them as isolated endeavors. Helms (2008) builds on this foundation, demonstrating how strategic alignment enhances both project success and organizational performance. From an intraorganizational perspective, Renz (2007) defines project governance as “a process-oriented system by which projects are strategically directed, integratively managed, and holistically controlled, in an entrepreneurial and ethically reflected way, appropriate to the singular, timewise, and complex context of projects (p. 19).” Building on the concept of project-oriented organizations proposed by Gareis and Huemann (2000), Shenhar and Dvir (2007) stress the importance of embedding governance into an organization’s core strategy, ensuring seamless integration and alignment.

Navigating interorganizational dynamics presents additional complexities. Bresnen et al. (2003) examined the governance of interorganizational project networks, exploring how diverse stakeholders—including clients, contractors, and regulatory bodies—impact governance structures. This research underscores the need for flexible and adaptive frameworks in collaborative projects. Expanding further, Morris (2013) situates project governance within a societal context, arguing that projects serve as integral components of societal development. His work encourages organizations to consider social impacts and integrate ethical considerations into their governance frameworks. Incorporating sustainability into governance structures has become a pressing concern in recent years. Walker and Rowlinson (2019) emphasize the transformative potential of aligning project governance with environmental and social responsibility. Their research advocates for organizations to adopt sustainable practices, aligning governance with global efforts toward ethical project management.

Following this development of broader concerns for various societal and sustainability issues, technological advancements have also reshaped project governance. Jugdev and Müller (2005) highlight the role of information technology in enhancing project governance efficiency through improved communication and decision-making processes. These synergies between technological innovation and governance structures are crucial for organizations leveraging digital transformation in project management. Insights from influential scholars have guided organizations in addressing challenges posed by sustainability imperatives, technological advancements, and societal demands. This synthesis of key contributions provides a comprehensive framework for navigating the complexities of governance while understanding its evolution. However, the past contributions within this area also highlight the need for more research on project governance.

Therefore, we invited the contributing authors of this special issue to deepen the discourse and debate on project governance by exploring and proposing innovative studies, employing creative research approaches, and expanding the understanding and practice of project governance across a broader range of contexts where projects play a critical role. After reviewing the accepted articles for this special issue, we have identified four key strands of research among the papers published that we believe also inform our general understanding of where we are in the field of project governance.

The Four Key Strands of Research

We have named the four key strands of research as: Resilience, Organization, Public Projects, and Innovation. We welcome readers to explore these strands and identify additional avenues for advancing their own research into project governance.

Strand 1: Resilience

Naderpajouh et al. (2023) highlight resilience science’s interest in project studies by raising concerns about the impact of “expected and unexpected disruptions” (p. 7) on projects and the inadequacy of existing mechanisms to deal with such disruptions. While their article has focused on leadership, we recognize its relevance for the governance of projects. We understand that complexity in project governance arises from the dynamic, uncertain, and interconnected nature of modern projects. Therefore, governance mechanisms in projects need to improve their resilience in such dynamic situations. Projects often deal with multiple stakeholders, rapidly changing requirements, and unforeseen events, making governance challenging (Pitsis et al., 2014). Projects seem to arrange for various multistakeholder collaborations. Effective project governance requires frameworks and practices that enable organizations to navigate unexpected situations while maintaining alignment with strategic goals (Song et al., 2022). This requires establishing decision-making structures, defining accountability, and fostering adaptability to manage risks and uncertainties. By integrating complexity thinking—such as recognizing emergent behaviors and nonlinear impacts—project governance can anticipate and respond to disruptions, ensuring resilience and innovation in project delivery (Koppenjian & Klijn, 2013).

The article “Governance in a Crisis and the Decision to Replace the Project Manager,” by Pinto, Davis, and Turner (2024) in this special issue highlights this need by examining how the governance of a project could deal with a crisis guided by the Cynefin complexity model (Snowden & Rancati, 2021). The crisis they examine is the replacement of a project manager triggered by stakeholder dissatisfaction that forces an organization to act. They identify a dual role for project governance to deal with the crisis. The first role is to act as a driving force that aids top management to act to replace the project manager. The second is to establish mechanisms to stabilize the project when a new project manager is appointed and address stakeholder concerns that influenced the decision. This empowering role of governance helps the new project manager regain control and restore trust with stakeholders. The authors observe that as the handover process unfolds, the project is likely to transition into a complex domain (as per the Cynefin model) and adaptation of governance mechanisms is needed. They highlight that those responsible for governing the project must ensure that it does not spin out of control when a crisis is sensed. In this regard, they reference the work done by Lv et al. (2023) on the need for a more relational governance approach (Nwajiei, 2021), moving away from contractual governance based on rules to enhance project resilience. The suggestion to use relational governance approaches has also been discussed in the article by Volden and Klakegg (2024) in this special issue regarding improvements made to the Norwegian Government Scheme, which began with hierarchical means using a system of controls focused on processes and shifted to a relationship approach more attuned to stakeholder needs.

Strand 2: Organization

The management of interorganizational projects has concerned project management researchers for over two decades since Dille and Söderlund (2011) raised concerns about management tensions in interinstitutional projects caused by differing institutional logics. Recently, Matinheikki et al. (2019) suggested that tensions in interorganizational projects could lead to “temporary hybridization” but will require a blended organizational structure with common governance systems to alleviate tensions created by differing institutional logics. Their research points to governance to manage interorganizational projects more effectively. Brunet (2019) indicates that very little research has been conducted in studying how project governance shapes and reshapes in practice when different actors interact in interorganizational contexts.

While the article “Project Governance and Governance of Interorganizational Project Networks: Toward Understanding Their Relationships and Future Research Agenda” by Wang et al. (2024) in this special issue deals directly with the governance of interorganizational project networks, the article “Revisiting the Principal–Agent Framework in the Context of Projects: Drawing Parallels with Corporate Governance” by Musawir (2024) discusses multilevel relationships in interorganizational settings using the principal–agent framework lens. Both authors highlight the shortcomings of traditional theories (Ahola et al., 2014) like transaction–cost economics (Williamson, 2005) and the principal–agent framework (Jensen & Meckling, 1976; Eisenhardt, 1989) for the governance of interorganizational projects.

Wang et al. (2024) urge researchers to explore four dimensions (4 M) that are missing in theorizing project governance in interorganizational contexts. They identify multiplicity, multilevel structure, multitemporal, and metaorganization as the missing dimensions and propose a matrix of project governance forms—extending from project governance and governance of projects to interorganizational governance and network governance—to improve the governance of interorganizational projects. Musawir (2024) investigates the principal–agent framework for governance and argues that this relationship needs further examination in projects where multiple relations contribute to a dynamic environment. He contends that applying the principal–agent framework in projects is a limited view that needs revisiting as projects are more dynamic than permanent organizations. To expand the limited view of the principal–agent framework in project governance, Musawir (2024) proposes three project archetypes. Two of the archetypes involve interorganizational projects. Archetype 2 represents a typical construction project with a principal and a main contractor, whereas Archetype 3 represents a situation where several organizations collaborate as a network (see Figure 4 in their article). Wang et al. (2024) also present a matrix of project governance structures (see Figure 1 in their article), showing interorganizational governance in one of the quadrants (bottom right of Figure 1) akin to Musawir’s (2024) Archetype 2 and network governance in the same matrix (Top right of Figure 1) like the arrangement depicted in Musawir’s (2024) Archetype 4.

Both authors emphasize the necessity of network governance theories and metagovernance in the governance of interorganizational projects, which pose a dynamic environment, arguing for improved project governance in interorganizational projects (Müller et al., 2024a). Recently, network governance has been drawing increasing attention in the context of interorganizational projects (Sydow, 2017; Sydow, 2022; Unterhitzenberger et al., 2023). Simultaneously, metagovernance is also gaining attention in the governance of interorganizational projects (Müller et al., 2024a) and in the governance of programs contributing to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Sankaran et al., 2024). All these points open new opportunities to widening the concerns for the study and practice of project governance. In that respect, these studies also emphasize how project governance could help in solving many of the pressing challenges and developments within the new forms of governance needed to address the major challenges facing contemporary society.

The issues raised by Musawir (2024) concerning multiple principals working together are also present in governing large projects (megaprojects) often implemented as interorganizational projects (Lovallo et al., 2023). Musawir’s (2024) discussion on the limitations of the principal–agent framework mirrors the discussion of double moral hazard in construction contracts (Shi et al., 2019), which is also found in megaprojects (Lovallo et al., 2023). Musawir (2024) also suggests using polycentric governance (Gil et al., 2018; Morrison et al., 2023) to deal with unexpected events arising in project networks (Söderholm, 2008). The shortcomings of traditional project governance regarding unexpected events are also highlighted by Pinto et al. (2024) in this special issue in the context of replacing a project manager. A polycentric approach using innovative action, detachment strategies, intensive meetings, and negotiation of project conditions (Söderholm, 2008) could be employed when a project manager departs from a project and is replaced by a new project manager.

Strand 3: Public Project and Institutional Studies

As governments fund many megaprojects, interest in the governance of public projects has grown over the years (Crawford & Helm, 2009; Brunet & Aubry, 2016). This has drawn attention to new forms of arranging governance in various public–private partnerships (Hodge & Greve, 2010; Clegg et al., 2024), and across different national and societal contexts (Flyvbjerg, 2017; Volden & Andersen, 2018).

Three articles in this special issue focus on public projects and contribute to emerging literature on institutional studies and projects (Söderlund & Sydow, 2019). The contribution by Volden and Klakegg (2024), “Governance of Public Projects—Missing Out on Learning Opportunities,” focuses on how the Norwegian project governance scheme has evolved over the past 20 years through improved practices using an organizational learning perspective (Senge, 1990; Argyris & Schön, 1997; Dochy & Laurijessen, 2021) and knowledge management (Nonaka et al., 2000; Pemsel et al., 2018) perspective. Norway offers a fascinating example for the study of project governance, and Volden and Klakegg demonstrate both key developments and major challenges facing the country and how it has developed its capability of governing major projects. The article by Brunet and Choinière (2024), “Governance Framework Trajectory for Major Public Projects: The Case of Canada,” also traces the evolution of project governance in a specific national context: the Canadian government over 40 years. This is an intriguing study. While learning and knowledge management are not explicitly mentioned in their article, the evolution of governance recognized the importance of lessons learned and advocated for the establishment of a learning environment. Conversely, in the contribution by Gemünden et al. (2024) presenting a longitudinal study of a public project, the authors exemplify a lack of lessons learned that resulted in poor governance and decision-making leading to delays, cost overruns, and shortfalls in realized benefits. All three articles highlight the importance of lessons learned and the responsibilities of the project owner in ensuring effective project governance. They also demonstrate how research may benefit from longitudinal studies using secondary data.

Volden and Klakegg (2024) take us through the transition of governance in major Norwegian public projects since 2000, moving away from a hierarchical regime toward a more holistic and relationship-based governance model. They emphasize how the Norwegian government learned through various changes in its governance strategies, contributing to the impact of organizational learning and knowledge management—a rich area for research in project-based organizations (Söderlund, 2024). Volden and Klakegg (2024) employ ex-post evaluation (Rossi et al., 2003) to trace the history of public governance development.

Brunet and Choinière (2024), who studied the governance transition of public projects in Canada, identify five policy transitions (See Figure 2 in their article) over the years: inception, specialization, suite, consolidation, and institutionalization. Their work extends the research in project governance to political studies (Hall & Taylor, 1996; van der Heijden 2011) and policy studies (Esposito & Tollrezzi, 2023; Sanderson & Winch, 2017) in addition to institutional theory (Scott, 2005; Biesenthal et al., 2018; Söderlund & Sydow, 2019). Their work also contributes to the analysis of multilevel governance (Müller et al., 2023 Turner, 2023) by looking at decisions at institutional layers from the policy level (governmentality), strategic decisions (board level), tactical decisions (governance of projects), and operational decisions (project governance).

Volden and Klakegg (2024) also differentiate decision-making in the Norwegian framework, where the so-called “QA 1” review stage focuses on strategic and tactical decisions, whereas the subsequent “QA 2” stage is for operational decisions (See Figure 1 in their article). However, they point out that while learning from previous projects was observed in their study, improvements are required. To achieve this, they suggest adding a third review stage, the “QA 3”, to the Norwegian framework by asking the project team to provide a termination report to capture lessons learned more comprehensively. They also recommend greater involvement of government agencies in ex-post evaluations and capability development efforts that in different ways enhance a nation’s ability to identity, evaluate, and govern major projects.

Along similar lines, Brunet and Choinière (2024) also note that while their inquiry focused on the regulative and normative pillars of Scott’s (1995) institutional theory framework, more work is needed to understand the cultural–cognitive pillar and how these factors played a role in the evolution. Evaluating governance in Norway and Canada serves as a good example of studying transitions in projects (Sankaran et al., 2021), while the three articles discussed under this strand are excellent examples of utilizing a single longitudinal case study approach (Flyvbjerg, 2006; Yin, 2014).

In their article, “The Impact of the Berlin Airport Project on the Business Performance of Its Owner Company,” Gemünden et al. (2024) evaluate the business performance of the Berlin Airport Project from a project value perspective, which has increasingly become a major concern for project scholars around the world (Locatelli et al., 2023). Gemünden et al. (2024) report on the project’s outcomes from a financial accounting perspective using publicly available data from 2005 through 2021. Through their investigation they uncover failures in project governance and timely decision-making by project stakeholders. By analyzing the project from a longitudinal perspective, they illuminate when and how project cost overruns occurred and why. Their analysis reveals several issues that contributed to the airport’s business performance, including limited baggage handling and increased fees causing inconvenience to passengers. Gemünden et al. (2024) also identify deficiencies in the reporting of revenue and write-offs of assets and loans at higher interest rates, which contributed to increased expenses. Their study also indicates that some issues attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic were misrepresented, contributing to “delusion and deception” by hiding true information from stakeholders (Flyvbjerg et al., 2009; Denicol et al., 2020). Gemünden et al.’s (2024) article will assist other researchers in analyzing the impact of public megaprojects by pursuing investigative methods mapping financial performance data and news reports about the project during its life cycle and operation to report on outcomes and the long-term impact of a megaproject. Gemünden et al. (2024) emphasize the importance of learning by project owners that could have addressed the situation sooner.

All three articles discussed in this strand highlight the significance of learning in a project environment, which has been a concern for project management researchers for some time (Kotnour, 1999; Söderlund, 2008; Chronéer & Backlund, 2015; Davies et al., 2018). How learning contributes to innovation in projects is also relevant to the innovation theme of governance discussed next.

Strand 4: Innovation

Sergeeva (2020), who used narratives from senior managers involved in project governance in the United Kingdom, found that more flexible and less prescriptive models of governance can stimulate innovation in projects and programs. Three articles in this special issue contribute to understanding how flexibility and innovation can be incorporated into project governance. In “Alternative Approaches to Innovation Project Portfolio Governance,” Tuominen and Martinsuo (2024) discuss innovations at the project portfolio level and argue that decision-making in innovation portfolios depends on the dynamics of the organizational context in which portfolio governance occurs. In “The Project Management Office’s Active Participation in a Digital Transformation: A Trajectory Full of Twists and Turns,” Simard and Aubry (2024) investigate the active role of project management offices during a six-year digital transformation in a banking sector striving to drive innovation. In “Governance and Creativity in Project-Based Organizations: Archetypes and Agenda for Future Research,” Pemsel and Söderlund (2024) suggest that traditional governance practices may limit innovation and creativity if governance focuses too closely on efficiency through processes, procedures, and structures. All three articles recommend flexibility in governance structures when dealing with innovation and projects. These three articles operate at three different levels of the seven-layer Organizational Project Management (OPM) Model (Müller et al., 2019) that serves as a governance model for all project management activities in organizations. Simard and Aubry’s (2024) article contributes to the OPM Approach layer, where organizational PMOs’ activities are governed to deliver a bank’s digital transformation strategy. Tuominen and Martinsuo’s (2024) work on innovation in project portfolio governance contributes to the Business Integration Layer of the OPM model, where project portfolio management activities are governed. Pemsel and Söderlund’s (2024) article contributes to the Project Governance Layer of the OPM model, where governance activities of projects occur. Tuominen and Martinsuo (2024) discuss the role of governmentality (Clegg, 2019; Hamann, 2019), which has received increased attention in project governance for establishing a conducive culture. Simard and Aubry (2024) use the notion of governmentality to explain transitions in a digital transformation project and how the project acted as an enabler to move the transformation forward (Clegg & Ninan, 2023). The article demonstrates the significant role of project governance to succeed with digital transformation. Both Tuominen and Martinsuo (2024) and Pemsel and Söderlund (2024) employ multiple case studies, whereas Simard and Aubry (2024) use a single case study, collecting longitudinal data over six years, like the three articles discussed under the public project strand but employing data gathered through interviews during the transition.

Tuominen and Martinsuo (2024) categorize how contextual governance in firms could vary from being consultative, regulated, autonomous, or delegated based on the authority (centralized or decentralized) available to the portfolio function and the rhythm followed by governance activities (slow or fast) (see Figure 1 in their article). They reference Mosavi (2014) and explore the roles of portfolio steering committees in project portfolio governance, studying the interrelationships among involved actors, their formal responsibilities (authority), and how frequently portfolio meetings provide organized (rhythm) and develop patterns of project portfolio governance. Their article advocates the flexibility needed in governance structures and processes based on the context of organizations in portfolio management of innovations. However, they suggest that “autonomous portfolio governance” in Figure 1 in their article requires further investigation, as the three case studies they analyzed did not fall within this quadrant, where an organization uses decentralized decision-making following a slow rhythm. Similarly, Pemsel and Söderlund (2024), who draw on four illustrative cases, propose four archetypes depicting governance orientations—control, value, performance, and network—based on creativity orientation (outcome or process) and creativity locus (individual or collective) of the context in which innovation is carried out in project-based organizations. They suggest that further research on their proposed governance archetypes should be conducted to strengthen the comparative analysis of governance in project-based organizations.

Simard and Aubry (2024) identify different forms of governmentality that facilitated the progress of the digital transformation during the six-year project across five periods (see Figure 3 in their article). The types of governmentalities they recognized were linked to—value chain (in periods 1 and 2), IT manufacture (in period 3), and business product manufacture and distribution (in periods 4 and 5). Their study provides a rich understanding of the tensions and challenges faced by PMOs that acted as both boundary spanners and contributors to the delivery of the transformation. Pemsel and Söderlund also discuss the tension between using governance to maintain efficiency and productivity versus using it to promote creativity and innovation. The tensions or paradoxes faced by organizations in these two articles relate to the application of paradox theory (Smith & Lewis, 2011), which is gaining popularity in project studies (Brady & Maylor, 2010).

Pemsel and Söderlund (2024) warn that traditional governance practices may limit innovation and creativity when needed in projects by focusing on efficiency through processes and structures. They caution that a project may reach a dead end if it fails to act creatively when required. For creativity to flourish, they suggest that governance practices should be flexible, interrelational, and nonbureaucratic, citing the Venice Biennial projects as an example (Pisotska et al., 2022). Pemsel and Söderlund (2024) recommend that projects maintain the balance between being guardians of efficiency while also serving as guardians of creativity, allowing playfulness and creativity to thrive. Pemsel and Söderlund’s (2024) call for a more creative and innovative approach is echoed by corporate governance organizations facing challenges due to open innovation and the increasing need for interorganizational collaboration to manage knowledge and create value (Filatotchev et al., 2020).

While the three articles in this strand investigate project governance at different levels of organizations, they also reveal the limitations of traditional representations of project governance, highlighting the need for innovation. Governmentality, where those governed assume responsibility for self-governance (Clegg & Ninan, 2023; Müller et al., 2015), plays a prominent role in enabling organizations in the articles by Simard and Aubry (2024) and Tuominen and Martinsuo (2024). Pemsel and Söderlund (2024) found in the Oticon case that self-organization significantly increased the number of new ideas generated but also created challenges for effective collaboration (Larsen, 2002), indicating that a balance between traditional project governance and more flexible governance may be required in innovation projects (Laine et al., 2020).

Conclusions and Areas for Further Exploration

The guest editors would like to thank all the authors for extending the work of Project Management Journal®’s previous Editor-in-Chief, Emeritus Professor Ralf Müller, who has significantly advanced research on project governance and inspired many of us to pursue studies in this area. We conclude with a summary of new ideas and theories found in the articles of this special issue, along with suggestions for future research.

Theoretical Insights

As the articles in this special issue have highlighted, there is a need to use fresh lenses to overcome the challenges of traditional approaches to project governance. Some theories uncovered from the articles that are useful for further exploration include paradox theory (Simard & Aubry 2024), governance theories such as metagovernance (Wang et al., 2024), network theories (Wang et al., 2024; Musawir, 2024), polycentric governance (Musawir, 2024), transition theories (Volden & Klakegg, 2024; Brunet & Choinière 2024), creativity theory (Pemsel & Söderlund, 2024), and complexity theories (Pinto et al., 2024). The authors of this editorial would like to add stakeholder salience dynamics, behavioral economics, and theories from organizational behavior research as other approaches to enhance both academic knowledge and governance practices to understand the multifaceted relationships and unpredictable impacts in project environments.

Evolving Models and Frameworks for Effective Governance

The need for new models of governance, such as multilevel, metagovernance, network governance (Wang et al., 2024; Brunet & Choinière, 2024; Sydow, 2017; Sydow, 2022), and polycentric models (Musawir, 2024), has been discussed in this special issue. These developments certainly improve project governance but equally highlight the increasing complexity of the subject matter. Such models could help build more robust systems of project governance to address contemporary challenges faced in projects; however, to make this work there is a need for wider involvement from practitioners. The articles also point to policy-level adaptations at government levels (Volden & Klakegg, 2024; Brunet & Choinière, 2024), indicating an increased interest in policy research. The use of publicly available data to identify opportunities for improving project performance in megaprojects is another area ripe for further research (Gemünden et al., 2024).

New Challenges

As organizations attempt to transform to remain competitive and relevant, the interest in how to manage and sustain these transformations will attract project management researchers. Simard and Aubry (2024) have provided insights into the role of project governance in digital transformations using a governmentality lens. Innovative governance approaches will require more flexibility and creativity to adapt to dynamic situations, as pointed out by Tuominen and Martinsuo (2024) and Pemsel and Söderlund (2024). These contributions highlight the need for more dynamic, context-sensitive adaptations to project governance.

No doubt, advances in technology, social and environmental concerns, and shifts in stakeholder needs will also demand new approaches to investigate project governance (Paravano et al., 2023; Zancan et al., 2024). Artificial intelligence (AI) will play an important role, along with data science, in enhancing decision-making by helping managers make optimal use of large amounts of available data through intelligent agents (Sharma et al., 2020; Chhillar & Augilera, 2022). The recent rise of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting by organizations has put pressure on governance practices to deliver better project outcomes from social and environmental perspectives (Müller et al., 2024b). We urge scholars to undertake research on project governance to meet contemporary challenges and opportunities for project management to deliver beneficial and sustainable outcomes.

Unresolved Issues on Project Governance

Pinto et al. (2024) suggest further research into governance mechanisms using the Cynefin complexity framework (Snowden & Rancati, 2021) to tailor governance responses to crises arising during a project. Polycentric governance (Gil & Pinto, 2018; Söderholm, 2008), discussed by Musawir (2024), is relevant for recovering a project from crisis situations.

Wang et al. (2024) suggest that more theoretical development of interorganizational project networks is required, using the dimensions of multiplicity, multilevel structure, multitemporal, and metaorganization. They urge project management researchers to further explore network governance and metagovernance (Müller et al., 2023) to contribute to research on interorganizational projects (Unterhitzenberger et al., 2023). Exploring governance theories further has also been proposed by Musawir (2024) to investigate how agency and stewardship theories apply to projects due to their dynamic nature compared with permanent organizations. Musawir (2024) suggests that project management researchers study principal–principal conflicts in megaprojects where multiple organizations with several actors are present. Both Wang et al. (2024) and Musawir (2024) call for more research into the application of governance in projects that use collaborative models of delivery (Hall & Bonanomi, 2021), which are now on the increase. Volden and Klakegg (2024) suggest more research into learning and knowledge-transfer practices in project governance, following such research in project management (Sense, 2011) and alliances in projects (Mesquita et al., 2008). They also encourage researchers to identify governance at several levels in project governance as identified by Brunet and Choinière (2024), who also investigated public projects.

Volden and Klakegg (2024) urge project management researchers to observe how changes in project governance are influenced by technology and society. This highlights the impact of AI on governance (Sharma & Yadav, 2020) and ESG reporting by project-based organizations (Müller et al., 2024). Brunet and Choinière (2024) ask researchers to examine the dynamic and evolving features of project governance as they relate to public policy (Sanderson & Winch, 2017). They hold that more work is needed to examine project governance from the cultural cognitive pillar of institutional theory (Scott, 1995) to determine the impact of agency and the shaping of project governance in practice (Zwikael & Smyrk, 2015). Brunet and Choinière (2024) are also interested in investigating the role of enablers and governmentality that impact governance policies during political transitions (Brunet & Aubry, 2016). Both Volden and Klakegg (2024) and Brunet and Choinière (2024)—who traced the evolution of project governance in their respective countries—see the benefit of conducting comparative studies of public governance worldwide to better understand public governance in different contexts. Gemünden et al. (2024) propose that project owners should be more transparent in their decision-making so that researchers can evaluate the impact of decision-making over time on the successes and failures of publicly funded megaprojects. They identify political resistance to transparency in public projects (Berliner, 2014) as preventing the public from identifying delusion and deception (Denicol et al., 2020; Flyvbjerg et al., 2009).

Tuominen and Martinsuo (2024) ask project management researchers to investigate governance layers to contribute to work on project organizing (Winch, 2014). Based on their article, which investigated authority and rhythm in the portfolio governance of innovative projects, they suggest extending their investigation into noninnovative projects. The division of authority between groups and individuals in project portfolio governance also requires more investigation using a governmentality lens (Mohosho et al., 2024). More investigation into the proposed autonomous portfolio governance model included in Tuominen and Martinsuo (2024) and external outreach and formality dimensions of project portfolio governance are also recommended (Martinsuo, 2023). Simard and Aubry (2024) suggest that more research is needed into the role of the PMO as a boundary spanner or knowledge broker (Hadi et al., 2022) in digital transformation projects. They also state that further research is needed to accept paradoxes in the context of innovative projects so that standard solutions can be found with the involvement of stakeholders while making critical decisions during organizational transformations (Strode et al., 2022). Pemsel and Söderlund (2024) also urge the need for more investigation into paradoxical tensions when project-based organizations need to balance control and creativity to innovate. They suggest a few avenues for further research, including empirical validation of the dimensions in the matrix of archetypes they proposed through large-scale data collection and exploring and comparing them in various empirical contexts with other contingency factors. Pemsel and Söderlund also recommend a longitudinal study of project-based organizations to trace their evolution over time (Kwak et al., 2015) like Tuominen and Martinsuo (2024), who suggest longitudinal research into the design of portfolio governance patterns.

Exploring New Methodological Approaches

Three articles in the special issue—by Pinto et al. (2024), Wang et al. (2024), and Musawir (2024) —use conceptualization from a focused literature review to explore project governance. While Pemsel and Söderlund’s article is also conceptual, they use a realist review process (Pawson et al., 2005) to develop four archetypes by analyzing four case studies. Developing archetypes seems useful in project governance research (Song et al., 2022). Musawir (2024) has also developed archetypes from his research. Volden and Klakegg (2024), Brunet and Aubry (2024), and Gemünden et al. (2024) use a single longitudinal case study for multiple purposes: investigating organizational learning (Volden & Klakegg, 2024), studying the evolution of policy (Brunet & Choinière, 2024), investigating project owners’ decision-making and its impact on project outcomes (Gemünden et al., 2024), and studying digital transformation (Simard & Aubry, 2024). Tuominen and Martinsuo (2024) and Pemsel and Söderlund (2024) also favor conducting longitudinal studies. Thus, several articles in this special issue suggest that longitudinal studies are useful for further research in project governance. Using literature reviews to develop archetypes for additional investigation is also beneficial to project governance practice (Song et al., 2022).

The guest editors feel that narrative research—by collecting stories from project board members, and ethnographic studies to investigate wicked problems posed by governing projects (Smith et al., 2022), and participating in project board meetings (Pugilese et al., 2015)—could be useful approaches for studying project governance. Future research might experiment with recent methodological approaches. For instance, as suggested by Geraldi et al. (2024), leveraging techniques such as natural language processing makes it possible to analyze large volumes of textual data, such as emails, meeting transcripts, and reports, to uncover themes and sentiments related to project governance. Analyzing stakeholders’ communications gauges the emotional tone and attitudes toward governance decisions, providing insights into team morale and the acceptance of governance policies. This might be done in the context of participatory action research (Sankaran & Dick, 2024), which engages researchers and participants collaboratively in the research process. In project governance studies, this approach ensures the perspectives of more stakeholders are considered, leading to more comprehensive insights. This is just one example of how modern tools and approaches can support research in project governance. We leave it to the reader to leverage the classic texts of Professor Ralf Muller (and the articles in this special issue) as a starting point to experiment with fresh approaches. Journals interested in advancing project studies, including this journal, are always interested in new submissions in the spirit of the Manifesto (Locatelli et al., 2023), of which Emeritus Professor Müller was one of the key authors.

While the guest editors have summarized what we found from the articles published in this special issue, we urge readers to explore further and discover more opportunities for promoting governance approaches in steering projects to deliver beneficial and sustainable outcomes.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Jönas Soderlund, and Dr. Gita Sankaran for reviewing the content of this article and providing valuable comments. We would also like to thank all the authors who submitted articles to this special issue to honor the previous Editor-in-Chief of Project Management Journal^® Emeritus Professor Ralf Müller’s contribution to the project governance field.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Shankar Sankaran

Nathalie Drouin

Giorgio Locatelli

References

Ahola

Ruuska

Artto

Kujala

. (2014). What is project governance and what are its origins? International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1321–1332.

Argyris

Schön

D. A

. (1997). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, (77/78), 345–348.

Berliner

. (2014). The political origins of transparency. The Journal of Politics, 76(2), 479–491.

Biesenthal

Clegg

Mahalingam

Sankaran

. (2018). Applying institutional theories to managing megaprojects. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 43–54.

Brady

Maylor

. (2010). The improvement paradox in project contexts: A clue to the way forward? International Journal of Project Management, 28(8), 787–795.

Bresnen

Edelman

Newell

Scarbrough

Swan

. (2003). Social practices and the management of knowledge in project environments. International Journal of Project Management, 21(3), 157–166.

Brunet

. (2019). Governance-as-practice for major public infrastructure projects: A case of multilevel project governing. International Journal of Project Management, 37(2), 283–297.

Brunet

Aubry

. (2016). The three dimensions of a governance framework for major public projects. International Journal of Project Management, 34(8), 1596–1607.

Brunet

Choinière

. (2024). Governance framework trajectory for major public projects: The case of Canada. Project Management Journal, 56(1). 10.1177/87569728241251710

10.

Chhillar

Aguilera

R. V

. (2022). An eye for artificial intelligence: Insights into the governance of artificial intelligence and vision for future research. Business and Society, 61(5), 1197–1241.

11.

Chronéer

Backlund

. (2015). A holistic view on learning in project-based organizations. Project Management Journal, 46(3), 61–74.

12.

Clegg

. (2019). Governmentality. Project Management Journal, 50(3), 266–270.

13.

Clegg

S. R.

Devkar

Mangioni

Sankaran

. (Eds.). (2024). Handbook on public–private partnerships in international infrastructure development: A critical perspective. Edward Elgar Publishing.

14.

Clegg

Ninan

. (2023). Foucault's governmentality and the issue of project collaboration. In Winch

G. M.

Brunet

Cao

(Eds.), Research handbook on complex project organizing (pp. 99–106). Edward Elgar Publishing.

15.

Clegg

S. R.

Pitsis

T. S.

Rura-Polley

Marosszeky

. (2002). Governmentality matters: Designing an alliance culture of interorganizational collaboration for managing projects. Organization Studies, 23(3), 317–337.

16.

Crawford

. (2007). Global body of project management knowledge and standards. In Morris

P. W. G.

Pinto

J. K.

(Eds.), The Wiley guide to managing projects (pp. 206–252). John Wiley and Sons.

17.

Crawford

L. H.

Helm

. (2009). Government and governance: The value of project management in the public sector. Project Management journal, 40(1), 73–87.

18.

Davies

. (2024). From project management to the ‘management of projects’: What motivated Peter Morris to create a new paradigm? Engineering Project Organization Journal, 11, 16–16.

19.

Davies

Manning

Söderlund

. (2018). When neighboring disciplines fail to learn from each other: The case of innovation and project management research. Research Policy, 47(5), 965–979.

20.

Denicol

Davies

Krystallis

. (2020). What are the causes and cures of poor megaproject performance? A systematic literature review and research agenda. Project Management Journal, 51(3), 328–345.

21.

Dille

Söderlund

. (2011). Managing inter-institutional projects: The significance of isochronism, timing norms and temporal misfits. International Journal of Project Management, 29(4), 480–490.

22.

Dochy

Laurijssen

. (2021). Systems thinking and building learning organizations: Peter Senge. In Theories of workplace learning in changing times (pp. 173–198). Routledge.

23.

Drouin

Shankar

Müller

. (2024) A glimpse into transition theory and project governance evolution, IRNOP Conference, Stockholm, Sweden, 12–14 June.

24.

Eisenhardt

K. M

. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74.

25.

Esposito

Terlizzi

. (2023). Governing wickedness in megaprojects: Discursive and institutional perspectives. Policy and Society, 42(2), 131–147.

26.

Filatotchev

Aguilera

R. V.

Wright

. (2020). From governance of innovation to innovations in governance. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(2), 173–181.

27.

Flyvbjerg

. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.

28.

Flyvbjerg

. (Ed.). (2017). The Oxford handbook of megaproject management. Oxford University Press.

29.

Flyvbjerg

Garbuio

Lovallo

. (2009). Delusion and deception in large infrastructure projects: Two models for explaining and preventing executive disaster. California Management Review, 51(2), 170–193.

30.

Gareis

Huemann

(2000). Project management competences in the project-oriented organization. In Turner

Simister

(Eds.), Gower handbook of project management (3rd ed.) (pp. 31–43). Gower Publishing.

31.

Gemünden

H. G.

Mertens

Krehl

Wolf

K.-H.

Kock

. (2024). The impact of the Berlin Airport project on the business performance of its owner company. Project Management Journal, 56(1). 10.1177/87569728241300247

32.

Geraldi

Locatelli

Dei

Söderlund

Clegg

. (2024). AI for management and organization research: Examples and reflections from project studies. Project Management Journal, 55(4), 339–351.

33.

Gil

Pinto

. (2018) Polycentric organizing and performance: A contingency model and evidence from megaproject planning in the UK. Research Policy, 47(4), 717–734.

34.

Hadi

Liu

. (2022). Transcending the silos through project management office: Knowledge transactions, brokerage roles, and enabling factors. International Journal of Project Management, 40(2), 142–154.

35.

Hall

D. M.

Bonanomi

M. M

. (2021). Governing collaborative project delivery as a common-pool resource scenario. Project Management Journal, 52(3), 250–263.

36.

Hall

P. A.

Taylor

R. C. R

. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936–957.

37.

Helms

. (2008). Governing in the media age: The impact of the mass media on executive leadership in contemporary democracies. Government and Opposition, 43(1), 26–54.

38.

Hodge

Greve

. (2010). Public-private partnerships: governance scheme or language game? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 69(S1), S8–S22.

39.

Hamann

T. H

. (2009). Neoliberalism, governmentality, and ethics. Foucault Studies, 6(February), 37–59.

40.

Jensen

M. C.

Meckling

W. H

. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.

41.

Jugdev

Müller

. (2005). A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of project success. Project Management Journal, 36(4), 19–31.

42.

Koppenjan

Klijn

E. H

. (2013). What can governance network theory learn from complexity theory? Mirroring two perspectives on complexity. In Network theory in the public sector (pp. 157–173). Routledge.

43.

Kotnour

. (1999). A learning framework for project management. Project Management Journal, 30(2), 32–38.

44.

Kwak

Y. H.

Sadatsafavi

Walewski

Williams

N. L

. (2015). Evolution of project-based organization: A case study. International Journal of Project Management, 33(8), 1652–1664.

45.

Laine

Korhonen

Suomala

. (2020). The dynamics of repairing multi-project control practice: A project governance viewpoint. International Journal of Project Management, 38(7), 405–418.

46.

Larsen

H. H

. (2002). Oticon: Unorthodox project-based management and careers in a “spaghetti organization.” Human Resource Planning, 25(4), 30–37.

47.

Locatelli

Ika

Drouin

Müller

Huemann

Söderlund

Geraldi

Clegg

. (2023). A manifesto for project management research. European Management Review, 20(1), 3–17.

48.

Lovallo

Cristofaro

Flyvbjerg

. (2023). Governing large projects: A three-stage process to get it right. Academy of Management Perspectives, 37(2), 138–156.

49.

Chen

Wang

. (2023). Resource and cognitive perspectives: Unravelling the inﬂuence mechanism of project governance on organizational resilience in infrastructure projects. Buildings, 13(11), 2878.

50.

Martinsuo

. (2023). Portfolio and program governance. In Research handbook on the governance of projects (pp. 308–317). Edward Elgar Publishing.

51.

Matinheikki

Aaltonen

Walker

. (2019). Politics, public servants, and profits: Institutional complexity and temporary hybridization in a public infrastructure alliance project. International Journal of Project Management, 37(2), 298–317.

52.

Mesquita

L. F.

Anand

Brush

T. H

. (2008) Comparing the resource-based and relational views: Knowledge transfer and spillover in vertical alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 29(9), 913–941.

53.

Mohosho

J. S.

Nyandongo

K. M.

Dube

. (2024). The effect of governance and governmentality on project portfolio success. Acta Commercii-Independent Research Journal in the Management Sciences, 24(1),1–11.

54.

Monkelbaan

. (2019). Governance for the sustainable development goals . Springer.

55.

Morris

P. W

. (2013). Reconstructing project management reprised: A knowledge perspective. Project Management Journal, 44(5), 6–23.

56.

Morris

P. W.

Jamieson

. (2005). Moving from corporate strategy to project strategy. Project Management Journal, 36(4), 5–18.

57.

Morrison

T. H.

Bodin

Ö.

Cumming

G. S.

Lubell

Seppelt

Weible

C. M

. (2023). Building blocks of polycentric governance. Policy Studies Journal, 51(3), 475–499.

58.

Mosavi

. (2014). Exploring the roles of portfolio steering committees in project portfolio governance. International Journal of Project Management, 32(3), 388–399.

59.

Müller

(2009). Project governance. Gower Publishing.

60.

Müller

. (2017). Governance and governmentality in projects. Routledge.

61.

Müller

Alix-Séguin

Alonderienė

Bourgault

Chmieliauskas

Drouin

, … and Zhu

(2024a). A (meta) governance framework for multi-level governance of inter-organizational project networks. Production Planning and Control, 35(10), 1043–1062.

62.

Müller

Caron

M. A.

Drouin

Lereim

Alonderienė

Chmieliauskas

, … & Šuminskienė

(2024b). Governance of ESG implementations: Governance dimensions and their structural implementation. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business. 10.1108/IJMPB-05-2024-0107

63.

Müller

Drouin

Sankaran

. (2019). Modeling organizational project management. Project Management Journal, 50(4), 499–513.

64.

Müller

Pemsel

Shao

. (2015). Organizational enablers for project governance and governmentality in project-based organizations. International Journal of Project Management, 33(4), 839–851.

65.

Müller

Sankaran

Drouin

. (Eds.). (2023). Research handbook on the governance of projects. Edward Elgar Publishing.

66.

Musawir

A. U

. (2024). Revisiting the principal–agent framework in the context of projects: Drawing parallels with corporate governance. Project Management Journal, 56(1). 10.1177/87569728241270572

67.

Nonaka

Toyama

Konno

. (2000). SECI, Ba and leadership: A unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, 33(1), 5–34.

68.

Naderpajouh

Matinheikki

Keeys

L. A.

Aldrich

D. P.

Linkov

. (2023). Resilience science: Theoretical and methodological directions from the juncture of resilience and projects. International Journal of Project Management, 41(8), 102544.

69.

Nwajei

U. O. K

. (2021). How relational contract theory influence management strategies and project outcomes: A systematic literature review. Construction Management and Economics, 39(5), 432–457.

70.

Paravano

Locatelli

Trucco

. (2023). Evolution of space programs governance. In Müller

Sankaran

Drouin

(Eds.), Research handbook on the governance of projects (pp. 411–428). Edward Elgar Publishing.

71.

Pawson

Greenhalgh

Harvey

Walshe

. (2005). Realist review—A new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 10(1_suppl), 21–34.

72.

Pemsel

Söderlund

Wiewiora

. (2018). Contextualising capability development: Configurations of knowledge governance mechanisms in project-based organizations. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 30(10), 1226–1245.

73.

Pemsel

Söderlund

. (2024). Governance and creativity in project-based organizations: Archetypes and agenda for future research. Project Management Journal, 56(1). 10.1177/87569728241296808

74.

Pinto

Davis

Turner

. (2024). Governance in a crisis and the decision to replace the project manager. Project Management Journal, 56(1). 10.1177/87569728241245648

75.

Pisotska

Winch

Sergeeva

. (2022). Project governance interface and owner organizational identity: The Venice Biennale case. International Journal of Project Management, 40(6), 658–670.

76.

Pitsis

T. S.

Sankaran

Gudergan

Clegg

S. R

. (2014). Governing projects under complexity: Theory and practice in project management. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1285–1290.

77.

Pugliese

Nicholson

Bezemer

P. J

. (2015). An observational analysis of the impact of board dynamics and directors’ participation on perceived board effectiveness. British Journal of Management, 26(1), 1–25.

78.

Renz

P. S.

(2007). Project governance: Implementing corporate governance and business ethics in nonprofit organizations. Springer Science and Business Media.

79.

Rossi

P. H.

Lipsey

M. W.

Freeman

H. E

. (2003). Evaluation: A systematic approach. Sage Publications.

80.

Sanderson

Winch

. (2017). Public policy and projects: Making connections and starting conversations. International Journal of Project Management, 35(3), 221–223.

81.

Sankaran

Jacobsson

Blomquist

. (2021). The history and future of projects as a transition innovation: Towards a sustainable project management framework. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 38(5), 696–714.

82.

Sankaran

Dick

. (2024). Action research and project management. In Design methods and practices for research of project management (pp. 101–118). Routledge.

83.

Sankaran

Müller

Drouin

. (2024). Sustainable project management and its governance in the context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. In Silvius

Huemann

(Eds.), Research handbook on sustainable project management (pp. 83–96). Edward Elgar Publishing.

84.

Scott

W. R

. (1995). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. Sage.

85.

Scott

W. R.

(2005). Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program. In Smith

K. G.

Hitt

M. A.

(Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory development, 37(2), 460–484.

86.

Senge

. (1990). The fifth discipline. Doubleday.

87.

Sense

A. J

. (2011). The project workplace for organizational learning development. International Journal of Project Management, 29(8), 986–993.

88.

Sergeeva

. (2020). Towards more flexible approach to governance to allow innovation: The case of UK infrastructure. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 13(1), 1–19.

89.

Shenhar

A. J.

Dvir

. (2007). Project management research—The challenge and opportunity. Project Management Journal, 38(2), 93–99.

90.

Sharma

G. D.

Yadav

Chopra

. (2020). Artificial intelligence and effective governance: A review, critique and research agenda. Sustainable Futures, 2, 100004.

91.

Shi

Onishi

Kobayashi

. (2019). Double moral hazard and risk-sharing in construction projects. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 68(6), 1919–1929.

92.

Simard

Aubry

. (2024). The project management office’s active participation in a digital transformation: A trajectory full of twists and turns. Project Management Journal, 56(1). 10.1177/87569728241242029

93.

Smith

Sankaran

S. K.

Dick

. (2022). Wicked theorising: Theory building to solve complex problems . In Academy of Management Proceedings 2022(1),15098.

94.

Smith

W. K.

Lewis

M. W

. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.

95.

Snowden

Rancati

. (2021). Managing complexity (and chaos) in times of crisis: A field guide for decision makers inspired by the Cynefin framework (No. JRC123629). Publications Office of the European Union.

96.

Söderholm

. (2008). Project management of unexpected events. International Journal of Project Management, 26(1), 80–86.

97.

Söderlund

. (2008). Competence dynamics and learning processes in project-based firms: Shifting, adapting and leveraging. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12(01), 41–67.

98.

Söderlund

. (2024). Project-based organizations: An overview of an emerging ﬁeld of research. In Winch

Brunet

(Eds.), Research handbook on complex project organizing (pp. 172–182). Edward Elgar.

99.

Söderlund

Sydow

. (2019). Projects and institutions: Towards understanding their mutual constitution and dynamics. International Journal of Project Management, 37(2), 259–268.

100.

Song

Liu

Feng

Müller

. (2022). Rethinking project governance: Incorporating contextual and practice-based views. International Journal of Project Management, 40(4), 332–346.

101.

Strode

D. E.

Sharp

Barroca

Gregory

Taylor

. (2022). Tensions in organizations transforming to agility. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 69(6), 3572–3583.

102.

Sydow

. (2017). Managing inter-organizational metworks: Governance and practices between path dependence and uncertainty. In Hollstein

Matiaske

Schnapp

K. U.

(Eds.), Networked governance (pp 43–53) Springer.

103.

Sydow

. (2022). Studying the management of project networks: From structures to practices? Project Management Journal, 53(1), 3–7.

104.

Too

E. G.

Weaver

. (2014). The management of project management: A conceptual framework for project governance. International journal of project management, 32(8), 1382–1394.

105.

Tuominen

Martinsuo

. (2024). Alternative approaches to innovation project portfolio governance. Project Management Journal, 56(1). 10.1177/87569728241242429

106.

Turner

. (2023). Governance, policy, and politics. In Pasian

B. L.

Williams

N. L.

(Eds.), De Gruyter handbook of responsible project management (pp. 95–116). De Gruyter.

107.

Turner

J. R.

Keegan

. (1999). The versatile project-based organization: Governance and operational control. European Management Journal, 17(3), 296–309.

108.

Unterhitzenberger

Müller

Vaagaasar

A. L.

Alonderiene

Minelgaite

, … and Mongeon

(2023). A multilevel governance model for interorganizational project networks. Project Management Journal, 54(1), 88–105.

109.

van der Heijden

(2011). Institutional layering: A review of the use of the concept. Politics, 31(1), 9–18.

110.

Volden

G. H.

Andersen

. (2018). The hierarchy of public project governance frameworks: An empirical study of principles and practices in Norwegian ministries and agencies. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 11(1), 174–197.

111.

Volden

G. H.

Klakegg

O. J

. (2024). Governance of public projects—Missing out on learning opportunities. Project Management Journal, 56(1). 10.1177/87569728241285557

112.

Walker

Rowlinson

. (Eds.). (2019). Routledge handbook of integrated project delivery. Routledge.

113.

Wang

Liu

. (2024). Project governance and governance of interorganizational project networks: Toward understanding their relationships and future research agenda. Project Management Journal, 56(1). 10.1177/87569728241241506

114.

Williamson

O. E

. (2005). The economics of governance. American Economic Review, 95(2), 1–18.

115.

Winch

G. M

. (2014). Three domains of project organising. International Journal of Project Management, 32(5), 721–731.

116.

Yin

R. K.

(2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage

117.

Zancan

Paravano

Locatelli

Trucco

. (2024). Evolving governance in the space sector: From legacy space to new space models. Acta Astronautica, 225(December), 515–523.

118.

Zwikael

Smyrk

. (2015). Project governance: Balancing control and trust in dealing with risk. International Journal of Project Management, 33(4), 852–862.