Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The prevalent view of project governance is that it involves structures, principles, and processes that control project development and steer it toward desirable goals. However, the concept is not static, and this article highlights how its theoretical underpinnings have evolved over recent decades. A systematic review of 636 research articles reveals that almost 54% of these works are explicitly grounded in specific theoretical frameworks. We chart the trajectory and consolidation of the theories employed in these articles. Our analysis documents how a cohesive research stream of project governance emerged from a set of theoretically fragmented case studies in the early 2000s by gradually coalescing around a few strongly interconnected streams of studies employing agency theory and stakeholder theory together with transaction cost and institutional theoretical lenses. We highlight five approaches in project governance literature on a spectrum from traditional, theory-based approaches to adaptive, practice-based perspectives. We observe growth in applications of complexity, network, game, leadership, organizational, and social exchange theories. Building on the review, we propose that currently emerging technologies with novel applications to project governance necessitate more research addressing their ethical risks and their implications for project governance decentralization and anticipatory governance. Finally, we call for project governance research to further expand beyond traditionally studied industries to better tackle global challenges and support systemic sustainability transitions.

Keywords

project governance system of controls processes relationships content analysis chronological analysis

Introduction

The project governance research field is rapidly growing and may be challenging to navigate even for an experienced project scholar given the multidimensional nature of the project governance construct and the multilayer nature of its consequences across organizational, corporate, portfolio, program, and project domains. Practitioners and researchers’ interest in project governance seems to have evolved from a narrow profit maximization focus (e.g., Agency/Transaction Cost Theories optimizing contracts) to viability preservation (e.g., Institutional/Complexity Theories ensuring adaptability and stakeholder alignment) (Kuitert et al., 2023; Nihoul et al., 2023; Ninan et al., 2024). Integrative holistic approaches have largely replaced reductionist approaches, and research foci have largely shifted from symptoms to relationships (Schwaninger, 2019). Project governance processes and tasks have been explored from operational perspectives, governance of teams has been explored through psychological perspectives, and the diversity and connectivity of elements of governance have been explored from system perspectives (Müller, 2016).

A number of review studies have contributed to the understanding of project governance by examining various aspects, including its definitions (Ahola et al., 2014), levels of project governance (Biesenthal & Wilden, 2014), key organizational actors (Müller et al., 2014), contractual arrangements (Sarhan et al., 2017), agility (Lappi et al., 2018), governance of stakeholders (Derakhshan et al., 2019), organizational strategy (Musawir et al., 2020), and trust (Cerić et al., 2021). Recent research has also incorporated contextual and practice-based views (Song et al., 2022) and governance of interorganizational networks (Wang et al., 2023) (see Table 1). However, these studies tend to focus on specific aspects without fully capturing the broader theoretical landscape.

Table 1.

Previous Systematic Review Articles on Diverse Aspects of Project Governance

Researchers and Published Year	Assessment Period	Study Design	Key Elements of the Study and Outcomes
Biesenthal & Wilden (2014)	1979–2013	Analyzed 62 articles through textual analysis + co-citation analysis	- Identifying central governance theories - Overview of different levels of project governance and proposed theories - Distinguishing the differences between articles on project governance published in project management journals compared with general management journals.
Ahola et al. (2014)	1984–2011	A sample of 19 articles analyzed through citation analysis	- Project governance as external to any specific project - Project governance as an internal element in a specific project - Clarifying project governance concepts and its main origins
Müller et al. (2014)	Up to 2013	A total of 233 articles systematically reviewed	- Identifying the organizational enablers for project governance - Conceptualizing the organizational enablers as the comprising process facilitator - Proposing a new model of organizational enablers.
Sarhan et al. (2017)	1994–2016	A total of 76 construction procurement and contractual-related articles analyzed qualitatively	- Understanding of waste in construction by providing insight on different imperfect procurements and contractual arrangements - Assessing the imperfect construction procurement governance arrangements
Lappi et al. (2018)	Up to 2016	A total of 165 articles are systematically coded	- Understanding of project governance practices in agile projects - Contrasting traditional and agile project governance practices
Derakhshan et al. (2019)	1999–2017	A total of 87 articles are analyzed thematically	- Defining the roles, relationships, and positions of internal and external stakeholders inside and outside the organization's governance structure - Proposing adaptation of a broader view for having a more stakeholder inclusive approach in governance studies
Musawir et al. (2020)	Up to 2019	A systematic literature review is run on 271 publications from both academic and professional literature	- Assessing project governance definition, theoretical underpinnings, forms, and roles in enabling organizational strategy implementation - Proposing a typology of projects to assist in linking project governance guidelines to specific project contexts.
Cerić et al. (2021)	1997–2020	Content analysis of 52 articles	- Identifying six main trust topics, including trust in megaprojects, success of megaprojects, institutional/public trust, megaproject delivery methods, contracting, governance mechanism, and competence of project managers
Song et al. (2022)	2000–2020	Co-citation analysis of 1,325 articles	- Identifying governing practices and contextual interaction - Presenting a framework with four archetypes: organizational project governance, organizational project governing, institutional project governance, and institutional project governing.
Wang et al. (2023)	Up to 2022	Systematic review of 66 publications and exploring the nature of governance networks	- Identifies three literature categories—network governance design, performance, and theory—and explores configurational insights on design, governance for temporary organizing, and cross-level theoretical development.

The primary aim of this systematic review is to address this gap by analyzing the coevolution of the relationships among project governance themes, theories, and practices, as called for by Klein and Müller (2020). This analysis is particularly timely, given that over two decades have passed since the initial theoretical contributions to the field. Specifically, this study seeks to answer the following questions: Which theories have shaped the development of project governance research? What research themes have these theories explored? And how have these theories and their interrelationships evolved over time?

In addressing these questions, this article also critically examines whether the dominant theories in the literature adequately meet the current and future needs of project governance research. By identifying where these theories fall short and suggesting areas for expansion, this article aims to provide a focused research agenda that offers project governance scholars with new avenues for exploration.

The subsequent sections of this article are organized as follows: First, a contextual background of project governance is provided to establish a foundational understanding. Next, the research design and methodology employed in this study are explained. Following that, the theoretical evolution of project governance is systematically reviewed, and core research themes contributing to the body of knowledge are identified. Finally, the article concludes by presenting the research gaps and potential future areas for the development of project governance research.

Defining the Concept and Scope of Project Governance Research

Early definitions of governance can be traced back to classical theories of management (Turner & Keegan, 1999). Building on this foundation, they describe organizational governance as a set of mechanisms that manage the interface between project teams and their clients. These mechanisms include two roles “labelled the broker and steward,” which are essential for balancing control, accountability, and strategic alignment in project-based organizations (Turner & Keegan, 2001, p. 254). This perspective highlights governance as a hybrid structure that adapts to both market and hierarchical pressures. According to Ahola et al. (2014, p. 1322), there are two distinct streams of literature on project governance: one that sees it as “external to any specific project” and the other views it as “internal to a specific project.” The external view focuses on intraorganizational governance, where the organization establishes overarching policies and procedures for the governance of projects that apply across portfolios, programs, and projects. In contrast, the internal view addresses governance within individual projects, especially when they involve multiple organizations. From this internal view, project governance also involves monitoring project progress regularly and ideally keeping the project on track before any divergence occurs (Ireland, 2016). Similarly to general organizational governance, project governance contributes to defining relationships, principles, rights, and rules among project participants and stakeholders (Müller, 2016).

Combining the elements mentioned above, the Project Management Institute (PMI, 2021) defines project governance as guidance of project activities through frameworks, processes, and functions aligned with strategic, organizational, and operational objectives to introduce a unique product, service, or result. This definition combines both the internal and external views (Ahola et al., 2014) encompassing organizational governance, organizational project management governance (OPM), and portfolio, program, and project governance. In this context, a board of directors may be assigned to control and direct portfolios, programs, and projects through a set of predefined policies and processes. Complementary definitions have been provided by other influential bodies. ISO standards, specifically ISO/IEC 38500 (International Organization for Standardization [ISO], 2015), treat project governance as a subset of organizational governance, or in the case of corporations, corporate governance. Similarly, the Association for Project Management (APM) situates project governance within the broader domain of corporate governance (Bekker & Steyn, 2009).

Most notably, Müller (2016) has presented a comprehensive definition of project governance, consisting of the following three streams:

Governance as controls: Governance consists of control structures and mechanisms that regularly monitor the project outcomes and keep the project on the right course.

Governance as processes: Governance relies on process(es) that respond to the stakeholders’ rights and requirements. These processes control and direct projects.

Governance as relationships: Governance requires observing the rights and responsibilities among different actors and stakeholders. Stakeholders can be the internal and/or external participants in the project such as the regulators, auditors, governmental bodies, and so forth.

The three specific pillars of this definition are thoroughly based in governance research (Ireland, 2016; Larcker & Tayan, 2015) and provide a useful framework to structure analysis in our study. Rodney Turner and Anne Keegan’s (1999) work provides the starting point, as the project governance stream of research was pioneered in the project management literature by these scholars. Prior to their seminal contribution, governance research primarily resided within the realm of traditional organizations, investigated through the lens of classical management theories. Rare exceptions include an article by Torger Reve and Raymond Levitt (1984) published in the International Journal of Project Management, which focuses on the relationships among clients, contractors, and engineering consultants in construction projects with transaction cost as the main theoretical perspective.

Building upon Turner and Keegan’s work, project governance has since been consistently and systematically examined within the context of temporary organizations in project management research. Several systematic reviews addressing various aspects of this project-related governance research have been conducted. An overview with details of the study design, key elements, and outcomes is provided in Table 1. The extent of these reviews indicates the significance of and interest in project-related governance research and assists in understanding theoretical developments, but none has specifically aimed to review the trajectory and interconnections between applications of different theories to the persistent and emerging themes in project governance research and identify future research and theoretical directions.

Research Method

To collate empirical evidence of theoretical evolution in the research of project governance to map the structure of the research field and highlight interrelationships between actors and organizations driving this field forward, we conducted a systematic review following prespecified systematic review procedures to keep researchers’ subjective interference relatively low (Fan et al., 2022; Higgins & Green, 2008). The search was conducted in the Scopus database using the keywords (governance AND project OR “temporary organization” OR “project-based organization”) in the topic search to identify articles for inclusion in the review. While we acknowledge the different scopes of different databases, we chose Scopus for this study due to its coverage of all dominant journals in project management.

The initial date-range criterion was set to all years to the end of 2022. Due to the extended peer-review process, the search was updated to include publications up to 2024. To maintain focus while incorporating recent developments, this extension selectively included high-impact studies from top project management journals (including International Journal of Project Management [IJPM], Project Management Journal® [PMJ], International Journal of Managing Projects in Business [IJMPB], and Project Leadership and Society [PLAS]). We also conducted a manual cross-referencing within the most relevant and review articles in Table 1 to identify any related articles that might not have been captured through database searches. A total of 636 articles, including 585 articles (1999–2022) and 51 additional articles (2023–2024,) were collected for the review after passing through the selection stages (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Search process (Note: The ABCD journal list, provided by the Australian Business Deans Council [ABDC], is a classification system that ranks journals based on their quality and impact within the field.).

The publications were stored and managed in Endnote software (The EndNote Team, 2013) and NVivo software (QSR International Pty Ltd, 2018) was applied for cataloging, organizing, analyzing, and synthesizing the dataset, because it provides opportunities to conduct content analysis and identify connections among publications. This was useful, for example, in coding the articles in terms of their predominant focus on governance controls, processes, or relationships.

The article title, authors’ names and affiliations, abstract, keywords and references were stored in the RIS format and applied in the source evaluation and analysis (Bakhshi, 2016). Bibliographic coupling analysis (BCA) was complemented by network analysis using Gephi (Bastian et al., 2009) and UCINET (Borgatti et al., 2002). These tools helped identify evolving relationships among key project governance concepts, map clusters of theories in the literature, and visualize collaborations between influential actors and organizations advancing the field (Statsenko et al., 2022).. BCA also helped us to determine the relatedness of publications based on the number of shared references as described in Boyack and Klavans (2010). The outcome of the BCA was further elaborated by a descriptive content analysis of a selected set of articles using NVivo (Gaur & Kumar, 2018). This combined approach allowed us to uncover evolving relationships among the main project governance concepts and to map the development of research themes and theories over time.

For the clarity of presentation of the longitudinal evolution in the body of publications, we divide the review period into four subsections within which we delve chronologically into the development of main ideas and theories. As explained earlier, 1999 was taken as the starting point for our investigative review. A significant increase in project governance–related publications occurred after 2006. Then, starting from 2013, the number of relevant publications climbed to and has remained at elevated levels between 30 and 50 articles per year (Figure 2). In terms of research substance, we refer to the years after 2013 as the turn toward maturity in project governance literature. The period from 2020 onwards is characterized by a steady yet increasing number of publications per year, referred to here as the consolidation stage.

Figure 2.

Project governance publishing trends and evolution.

Results and Discussion

In this section, we first review the historical development of the project governance literature and, delving deeper into the content of influential studies and their underpinning theories, we elaborate further on key theoretical trends in project governance research over the four periods identified in Figure 2. We pay particular attention to cross-pollination between theoretical perspectives in the domain of project governance, where multiple theoretical angles are addressed within the same studies. The evolution of such theoretical connections is visualized in Figure 3 and discussed at the end of each subsection dedicated to the respective time intervals below. We also highlight which influential theories in project governance research tend to be applied to which popular research themes within the field. Finally, research gaps and future directions are discussed.

Figure 3.

Cross-pollination between jointly applied theoretical perspectives in the evolution of project governance research field. Theoretical perspectives are shaded according to their frequency of occurrence within the period (darker shades indicate more frequent perspectives, whereas lighter shades correspond to less frequent ones). Theories that have been jointly leveraged in the same studies are connected with a link, with its width indicating the frequency of such co-occurrence. The networks have been laid out such that interrelated theories in terms of their application in the same studies appear closer together.

First Period—Introductory Stage: 1999–2005

The initial works of Turner and Keegan (1999, 2001), which formed the catalyst for the field of governance in temporary organizations, proposed four elements of operational control: managing clients, managing inputs, managing processes, and managing outputs. Additionally, they described governance structures adopted by project-based firms in terms of broker and steward roles, with transaction cost as their theoretical lens. Around the same time, Cannon et al. (2000) started to assess the performance implications of governance structures in contractual agreements and social relationships, subject to varying conditions and forms of transactional uncertainty and relationship-specific adaptation. This was followed by Winch (2001), who proposed a conceptual framework for the governance of transactions by applying the construction project life cycle, where perspectives of construction law, economics, and management were combined.

After a gradual start, project governance literature experienced expansion to new spheres in 2004 when six new articles were published in the same year, all outside the core project management journals. This new momentum came at the same time as the Association for Project Management (2004) published guidelines for portfolio, program, and project governance in the public, private, and third sectors. At the same time, social network conceptualizations were introduced to the project governance literature by Stephen D. Pryke (2004) in the domain of construction projects. Thanks to this work, explicitly conceptualized networks of information exchange and contractual obligations (not just a metaphorical idea of networks) have become accepted as constituent aspects of governance.

Turner and Müller (2004) assessed the communications on projects within the framework of principal–agent theory and recommended a collaborative partnership between the client and empowered project managers. Other contributions in this initial period of project governance research included focus on contractual relationships (Grimsey & Lewis, 2004; Turner, 2004), strategic alliances (Gerwin & Ferris, 2004; Thorogood et al., 2004), the role of information technology in facilitating good governance (Peterson, 2004), and governance of resource deployments (Kor & Mahoney, 2005).

In terms of theoretical evolution and cross-pollination, several separate clusters of theories can be observed in Figure 3. Most notably, contingency theory was popular during this period in studies combining insights from resource dependency theory and ecology. A separate clique of theoretical viewpoints can be observed in a stream of articles combining perspectives from agency theory and transaction cost theory. Finally, there is a clear emerging cluster of theoretical and methodological approaches broadly related to network conceptualizations of project governance. While there are fuzzy boundaries and significant overlaps between the nodes of the network cluster, the label social network covers theoretical approaches where authors draw explicitly from established social theories to study processes among individuals and collectives in their network representation as is most common the tradition of research generally associated with the term social network analysis (SNA). Studies under the graph theory label can also operate with network nodes representing social entities. However, they tend to be more abstract or more directly concerned with the mathematical and algorithmic foundations of network research or advanced analytical approaches relative to the importance placed on grounding these mathematical approaches in any specific social theories. The label network is used for other general cases of studies using network analytical methods that do not always take a clear stance regarding which theory underpins the applied network concepts and can include diverse approaches including those that could be classified as organizational network analysis (ONA) or industrial network approaches.

Second Period—Growth Stage: 2006–2012

The next period displayed a clear growth of publications on project governance with approximately 10 articles per annum. Our search criteria identified a total of 73 articles on project governance published during this period, with 40 of them in prominent project management journals. The largest methodological category were case studies (42%), followed by reviews (20%) and conceptual research (18%). A large proportion of this body of work relied on empirical data collected either through interviews (40%) or from secondary sources (34%). Most common keywords in project governance articles published in this period were: public projects, uncertainty, decision-making, network, risk, stakeholder, strategic alliances, innovation, learning, and public–private partnership (PPP).

This period marked a move beyond the internal view of project governance toward the external view, encompassing collaboration, stakeholders, and organizational project governance. Thiry and Deguire (2007) pursued one of the foundational themes of project governance literature, namely the implications for organizational governance of the widespread adoption of project-based work. This period has also attracted interest in public–private partnerships from the viewpoint of governance with special attention to risk allocation (Abednego & Ogunlana, 2006a; Devapriya, 2006), and relationships between governments and governance were explored in public organizations (Crawford & Helm, 2009). Julie Cameron (2006) focused on projects with explicitly high emphasis on collaboration and compared observed governance structures, mechanisms, and methods to provide guidance for adopting appropriate governance approaches according to the attributes of collaborative projects.

On the conceptual and methodological fronts, Pryke and Pearson (2006) continued to further exploit the opportunities that network thinking and network research tools provide for making sense of project governance, in particular for coalitions in construction projects. Network concepts were then further leveraged to clarify distances among actors in project networks for better project governance (Ruuska et al., 2009). Managing of a project network was also discussed by Artto and Kujala (2008). Meanwhile, Chinyio and Akintoye (2008) and Abednego and Ogunlana (2006a) employed qualitative approaches to expand our understanding of the role of stakeholder dynamism and risk allocation among stakeholders for good project governance.

Another significant theme during this period could be labeled as public–private considerations in project governance, with studies of governance in public–private relationships, build-operate-transfer projects (Delhi et al., 2012), private-finance initiatives (Patel & Robinson, 2010), and the specific nature of project governance in public and private organizations (Abdul-Aziz, 2012). Implications of different types of project governance for generating positive outcomes for shareholders (Arranz & de Arroyabe, 2012) and general society (Shiferaw et al., 2012) were also considered.

It is apparent in Figure 3 that by this period network theory had become integrated within the main body of theories jointly used to study project governance. Researchers started to combine network theory with perspectives that were previously separate such as principal agent theory, transaction cost theory, or stewardship theory. Network theory went hand in hand with stakeholder theory to explain stakeholder dynamics in project governance as referred to above. Overall, the main cluster of theories that formed the core of studies during this period was dominated by agency theory that was most frequently applied in combination with other theories used during this period.

Third Period—Maturity Stage: 2013–2019

Over this period, around 30 project governance articles were published annually. The foundational concepts, theories, and insights pertinent to governance literature were comprehensively investigated and documented, yielding a robust repository of knowledge. Noteworthy among the prevalent article keywords during this phase are ethics, governmentality, organizational enablers, project success, project-based organizations, decision-making, trust, and knowledge management. As indicated by keyword frequency, following a decade of mounting interest in project governance, researchers have shifted their focus to ethical implications. This thematic shift owes its prominence to influential studies by Müller (2014), Müller et al. (2013), and Walker and Lloyd-Walker (2014).

Also in this period, the field advanced in the understanding of hierarchical and flat governance relationships (Aubry et al., 2014) and balancing control and trust under conditions of risk (Zwikael & Smyrk, 2015). After more than a decade of accumulated governance scholarship, review and conceptual studies, reflection upon, and summarizing, a trend toward critiquing the growing body of work also began to emerge (Bekker, 2014). This trend included reflections on the originality of project governance concepts (Ahola et al., 2014), considerations regarding the multilevel nature of project governance (Biesenthal & Wilden, 2014), and its organizational enablers (Müller et al., 2014).

Researchers’ interest in governance for sustainability also became notable (Hueskes et al., 2017) and lack of stakeholder engagement, lack of transparency and accountability, and goal conflicts between public and private sectors were identified as barriers to sustainability (Agarchand & Laishram, 2017). Introducing democratic and participative decision-making processes and developing effective communication protocols with stakeholders (Derakhshan et al., 2019) were identified as elements of governance that contribute to sustainable outcomes (Kivilä et al., 2017; Xie et al., 2017).

Another emerging issue is that of governance under different kinds of complexity (Baugh, 2015), (Carter et al., 2016), and its associated risks (Gao et al., 2018; van den Hurk & Verhoest, 2015), as well as the related question of how to govern collaboration in complex projects (Chakkol et al., 2018). The theme of complexity joined the research stream on networks that emerged in previous periods and led researchers to ask questions concerning the implications of structures of network relations among project actors for the governance of complex projects (Adami & Verschoore, 2018), the role of network governance in complex project management (Gorod et al., 2018), and how to manage complex supply networks (Statsenko et al., 2018). Frameworks such as the viable system model have been employed to analyze networks of complex interdependencies among projects within portfolios (Bathallath et al., 2019; Kummamuru & Hussaini, 2016).

During this period, agency theory, institutional theory, contingency theory, control theory, and stakeholder theory were frequently combined in the same studies as can be seen by their high centrality in the visualized networks of theoretical cross-pollination (Figure 3). An interest in complexity increased during this third period, and this perspective became more strongly interconnected to the rest of the project governance literature via more established systems perspectives in this field.

Fourth Period—Consolidation Stage: 2020–2024

In this final examined phase, 214 articles are included for analysis. The growth in the number of articles suggests an increasing focus on project governance and is accompanied by a further rise in the use of quantitative analysis, whereas qualitative aspects received comparatively less attention. Most of the published articles display a shift from foundational discussions toward a consolidation of interest around the implications of project governance for practical project and organization outcomes. For example, Young et al. (2020), Wu et al. (2020), and Ferrer et al. (2021) delve into the complex interplay between governance strategies and project outcomes. Trust (Ninan et al., 2022; Wu et al., 2020; Yan & Zhang, 2020), stakeholder engagement (Lehtinen & Aaltonen, 2020; Mysore et al., 2021), as well as ethics and compliance (Scoleze Ferrer et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021) have clearly become established key elements of effective project governance and are now seen as either an integral part, or a mediator of project success. The role of governance in facilitating innovation and strategic implementation also gained prominence during this period (Lehtinen & Aaltonen, 2020; McGrath & Whitty, 2020; Yang et al., 2021). Studies such as those by Martinez Sanz and Ortiz-Marcos (2020) and Zaman et al. (2022) underscored the need for adaptive governance to foster innovation and effectively align projects with strategic goals.

Recent contributions further highlight the dynamic nature of governance in complex, interorganizational contexts. For instance, Brunet et al. (2024) emphasize collaborative governance mechanisms—sensemaking, structural, procedural, and relational—to address the challenges of co-ownership in major projects, drawing on systems and contingency theories. Similarly, Fernandes et al. (2023) advance the discourse on interorganizational project governance by illustrating how relational factors like trust and interpersonal relationships stabilize governance configurations amid disruptions. The growing emphasis on governance adaptability is echoed in the work by Ika et al. (2024), where the authors identify market, technological, and sociopolitical changes as critical triggers for governance adaptations, which are often inadequately addressed in practice.

Established theoretical approaches from previous periods, agency theory, and institutional theory, remained highly central. Stakeholder theory—powered by now well-developed and frequently jointly applied network perspectives and tools—further increased its role as a key theory commonly applied in combinations with other popular theories of project governance research. Furthermore, transaction cost theory strengthened its prominence due to its frequent connections with other theoretical perspectives, including those related to organizational, stewardship, leadership, and social exchange (Gurcaylilar-Yenidogan & Erdogan, 2023; Zhang et al., 2024). In recent years, we also observed the introduction of frameworks rooted in auction game theoretical backgrounds (Hunhevicz et al., 2024) and novel applications of complexity theory to governance resilience (Nihoul et al., 2023; Shenoy & Mahanty, 2024). The centrality measures of these new entrants will be interesting to track in future studies, gauging their potential impact and evolution in the governance discourse.

Two emerging themes warrant attention. First, the interplay between contractual and relational governance continues to evolve, with Zhang et al. (2024) offering a configurational perspective that identifies synergistic pathways (e.g., contractual coordination paired with trust) for high project performance. Second, the role of leadership in governance is increasingly scrutinized: Cao et al. (2024) demonstrate how authentic leadership and behavioral integrity enhance project performance through mediating governance mechanisms, whereas Nauman et al. (2024) integrate servant leadership and social exchange theory to underscore trust as a linchpin in megaproject success. These developments suggest a nuanced understanding of governance as both a structural and behavioral phenomenon, bridging macrolevel frameworks with microlevel dynamics.

The Interplay Between Governance Research Themes and Theories

Research themes or topics can be thought of as subject areas within the broader realm of project governance. These themes guide research efforts, shaping our understanding of specific areas of interest (Salas et al., 2002). To construct a landscape of these themes, we analyzed the articles’ keywords and categorized them, resulting in the identification of 25 distinct themes (detailed in Appendix A at the end of the article). We applied the distributional hypothesis, which posits that words with similar meanings tend to occur in similar contexts, to group semantically related keywords. By analyzing the contexts in which these keywords frequently appear, we were able to identify patterns of co-occurrence and thereby classify them into meaningful semantic themes (Aletras et al., 2016; Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006).

We also conducted a content analysis to identify the different theories employed in the articles. This involved reviewing the theoretical frameworks and concepts explicitly mentioned in each article using NVivo software. A comprehensive list of theories derived from the literature analysis is provided in Appendix B at the end of the article. Then, we mapped the identified theories to the corresponding research themes derived from the keyword analysis. Finally, the presence and prominence of these themes within each of the four time periods are examined. This enabled us to identify themes and identify which themes and theories were most influential or emergent during specific periods and how these mutual intersect and coevolve.

The prominence of theories such as agency, transaction cost, and institutional in the governance literature is hardly surprising. These theories have historically provided robust frameworks for understanding the mechanics of governance. For example, agency theory shines a light on the relationships and potential conflicts between stakeholders (principals) and those assigned to execute the project (agents). Recent studies extend this to megaprojects, where governance structures must reconcile competing institutional demands across transnational contexts (Fu et al., 2024), and to interorganizational networks, where principal–agent dynamics are complicated by multilevel governance arrangements (Musawir, 2025). Transaction cost theory, on the other hand, offers insights into the cost implications of governance decisions and the role of contracts. Its interplay with social exchange theory has gained traction, particularly in studies examining how contractual and relational governance mechanisms combine to influence project performance (Zhang et al., 2024). Institutional theory remains pivotal for explaining how projects navigate isomorphic pressures, as seen in the adaptation of governance frameworks to shifting sociopolitical environments (Brunet & Choinière, 2025; Ika et al., 2024).

Table 2 displays the most common theories ranked in columns from left (most popular) to right. These theories are cross-tabulated, with the most common research themes ranked by their popularity from top to bottom. The cross-tabulation frequencies tell us which theories are popular for studying certain themes and which theories are considered unsuitable or overlooked in applications of these topics. For instance, the frequently examined topic of governance in public–private partnerships (PPPs) has often been analyzed through the lens of institutional theory (Zhang et al., 2015); however, the more prevalent agency theory has not been extensively explored in this context, despite its general application in project governance research (Song et al., 2022). Agency theory maintains a strong association with organizational design and structures, showing that agency dynamics play a significant role in how organizations structure their projects (Musawir, 2025). Transaction cost theory, as expected, prominently appears in the context of contractual governance, emphasizing its foundational role in understanding contract dynamics in projects (Cameron, 2006; Gurcaylilar-Yenidogan & Erdogan, 2023).

Table 2.

Most Commonly Applied Theories in Project Governance Research and Their Associated Research Themes

Theory Theme	Agency	Transaction Cost	Institutional	Stakeholder	Network	Contingency	Organization	Stewardship	Resource based	Principal-Agent	Control	Game
1. Trust and Relationship Building	10	17	7	20	13	5	6	4	8	2	2	5
2. Organizational Design and Structures	15	7	13	5	10	12	13	9	5	1	2	1
3. Project Practices and Performance	19	16	6	7	4	16	7	5	2	2	4	1
4. Knowledge Governance	7	5	6	11	7	6	2	2	6	4	1
5. Strategic Management and Decision-Making	13	5	8	7		3	4	7	3	2	2	1	12
6. Network Governance	7	7	6	2	16	4	5	3	2		3
7. Contractual and Legal Governance	7	14	10	2	4	3	4	3	2	1		3	10
8. Collaboration, Alliances, and Partnerships	4	9	13	4	10	3	3	1	2			3
9. Risk Assessment, Failure, and Recovery	8	5	5	3	1	4	4	1	3	3	1	1	8
10. Project Financing and Ownership	6	6	5	2	2	2	1	3	2	4		2
11. Infrastructure Development	2	8	13	3	5		1	1				1	6
12. Environmental and Social Impacts	7	3	4	6	2	2	4	2		1	1	2
13. Government Effectiveness and Governmentality	3	4	2			4	5	4	1	4		1	4
14. Complexity and Uncertainty	4	3	3	1	2	1	3	1	2	2	1	1
15. Organizational Behavior and Processes	7	2	2	1	3	3	2	3		1	1	1	2
16. Megaprojects	3	4	4	1	1	1	2	3	1	1	1	2
17. Adaptive and Flexible Governance	6	4	3	5	1			2	1	2
18. Governance and Control Mechanisms	5	7				1		1			9
19. Program and Portfolio Management	2	1	2	7	3	2	3	1	2
20. Ethics and Compliance	4	1	2	3			1	2		1	2	1
21. Leadership and Cultural Factors	4	2	4			1	1	5
22. Digital Governance	5	1		1	2	3				1
23. Project Success	3	3		3		1		1
24. Decentralized Governance	1	1	3		1
25. Dynamic Capabilities									2		1

Note: Darker shades indicate higher proportion of contributions of the theory in the research theme. Numbers inside the box indicate the number of publications cited the theory within that specific theme.

Network theory has been broadly applied to interorganizational collaboration (Fernandes et al., 2023) but less to understand the otherwise frequently studied issues of project success or government effectiveness. Curiously, contingency theory is rarely applied to leadership (Cao et al., 2024), a theme predominantly dominated by agency and stewardship theories. Given the adaptative nature of leadership in varying situations, it is surprising that contingency theory is not more widely applied here. Game theory, despite its potential broad applicability, seems to be niche in its actual use (Owen, 2013), primarily linked to trust and relationship building. Its emerging applications—such as modeling strategic decision-making in megaprojects (Stefano et al., 2023) or risk allocation in collaborative contracts (Li & Deng, 2024)—suggest fertile ground for future work.

The environmental and social impacts research theme has drawn on a wide range of theoretical perspectives, including agency, institutional, and stakeholder theories. This diversity underscores the multifaceted nature of environmental and social considerations in project governance. On the other hand, the theme of adaptive and flexible governance has significant relevance in today's rapidly changing project environments (Eshuis & Gerrits, 2021); while it is associated with a wide range of theories, game theory—despite its potential to offer valuable insights into strategic adaptability—remains underexplored in this context. Moreover, trust and relationship building could benefit from more exploration under network theory, given that trust dynamics play out extensively within networks (Manning, 2005).

Emerging themes like decentralized governance (Hunhevicz et al., 2024) and legal governance (Castro & Sainati, 2024) challenge traditional theoretical boundaries, whereas dynamic capabilities (Shenoy & Mahanty, 2024) and knowledge governance (Lello et al., 2024) signal a shift toward learning- and innovation-oriented frameworks. These developments underscore the need for theoretical pluralism to address governance’s evolving complexities.

In summary, Table 2 provides an overview of the prevailing theoretical lenses through which project governance and its myriad subthemes are currently viewed. This has the potential to guide researchers toward underexplored niches to introduce fresh theoretical perspectives for richer insights into certain themes.

Toward a Theory-Informed Research Agenda for the Projects of the Future

Our findings trace the theoretical development of project governance literature, revealing five approaches ranging from traditional, theory-based approaches to adaptive, practice-based perspectives. The first approach adapts theories commonly used in association with corporate governance (e.g., agency, transaction cost) to project contexts, but it struggles with the unique, transient nature of projects and their stakeholder networks (Biesenthal & Wilden, 2014). The second approach focuses on internal organizational capabilities (e.g., multilevel governance, communication) as enablers of effective governance (Müller et al., 2014). The third approach broadens the governance perspective to acknowledge external stakeholders, advocating for the integration of societal and psychological theories to address human aspects such as trust, ethics, and perception (Derakhshan et al., 2019). The fourth approach seeks to develop a comprehensive model of project governance that covers the entire project life cycle and incorporates both deliberate and emergent strategies (Musawir et al., 2020). Finally, the fifth approach advocates for governance models based on actual practices and contextual considerations, emphasizing adaptability and sensitivity to context, culture, and technology (Song et al., 2022). Table 3 provides a comparison among these five approaches.

Table 3.

Comparison of Five Approaches in Project Governance

Dimension	Approach 1: Extending Corporate Governance Theories	Approach 2: Organizational Enablers and Multilevel Governance	Approach 3: Integrating Societal and Psychological Aspects	Approach 4: Developing a Mainstream Model and Embracing Emergent Strategies	Approach 5: Practice-Based Interpretations and Contextual Considerations
Primary Focus	Applying traditional corporate governance theories (e.g., transaction cost economics, stewardship theory, principal–agent theory) to project-based organizations (PBOs)	Identifying organizational enablers (mechanisms, factors, process facilitators, discursive abilities) at different governance levels	Addressing the societal and psychological aspects of external stakeholders in project governance	Creating a unified, mainstream model of project governance, including a comprehensive taxonomy and life cycle approach	Emphasizing processual and practice-based interpretations, considering contextual, temporal, and technological contexts
Some Theoretical Foundations	Corporate governance theories	Organizational theory, communication theory, network theory	Stakeholder theory, psychological and societal theories (e.g., social exchange and conflict theories)	Strategic management theories, complexity theories	Practice theory, capability theory, institutional theory
Strengths	- Leverages established theories - Provides structured governance mechanisms - Emphasizes cost control, trust, and control	- Offers a holistic view of internal enablers - Highlights importance of processes and communication - Considers multilevel governance	- Broadens scope to include external stakeholders - Emphasizes human-centric governance - Encourages interdisciplinary integration	- Promotes comprehensive governance across project life cycle - Aligns projects with organizational strategy - Encourages flexibility through emergent strategies	- Grounded in real-world practices - Adaptable to specific contexts - Recognizes evolving nature of governance
Limitations	- May not fully account for unique project characteristics - Lacks specific project governance roles - Limited stakeholder scope	- Largely theoretical; needs empirical validation - May overlook external factors - Potential complexity in implementation	- Implementation can be complex - May slow decision-making - Challenges in measuring qualitative aspects	- Risks being too generic - Balancing standardization with flexibility is challenging - Implementation across all life cycle stages may be resource intensive	- Practices may not be generalizable - Potential lack of formal structure - Data collection can be challenging
Seminal Articles	Turner and Keegan (2001); Grimsey and Lewis (2004); Müller et al. (2013)	Biesenthal and Wilden (2014); Müller et al. (2015); Unterhitzenberger et al. (2023)	Derakhshan et al. (2019); Ma et al., (2017); Nauman et al. (2024)	Abednego and Ogunlana (2006b); Musawir et al. (2020);	Brunet (2019); Musawir et al. (2023)

Despite the progress made in understanding project governance, gaps persist in the current research landscape. Identifying and mapping out these research gaps can help us enhance the theoretical foundation of project governance with fresh perspectives. We outline a research agenda to address them, drawing on emerging themes and theoretical foundations from recent literature.

First, while extant research emphasizes control (e.g., contracts, monitoring) and relationships (e.g., trust, social exchange), the processual dimension of governance—how mechanisms interact and evolve—remains relatively underexplored. Future studies could examine configurational pathways linking governance mechanisms to outcomes, as demonstrated in studies of contractual–relational synergies (Zhang et al., 2024) or dynamic capabilities in megaprojects (Shenoy & Mahanty, 2024). Process- and roles-based models (e.g., Nihoul et al.’s [2023] use of complexity theory) could be leveraged to trace how governance adapts to disruptions like technological shifts or stakeholder conflicts. There are opportunities to explore temporal governance (Ika et al., 2024), investigating how time-sensitive adaptations (e.g., to market or regulatory changes) impact project viability as another area of future research.

Second, there appears to be insufficient attention to the interconnected nature of levels through which project governance operates. Most research focuses on project- or corporate-level governance, neglecting interplays across program, portfolio, and societal levels. Future work should investigate cross-level governance interactions such as how corporate policies shape project autonomy (Brunet et al., 2024) or how community-level trust influences megaproject legitimacy (Ninan et al., 2022). Scholars advocate for the development of integrated frameworks for governance in project networks (Wang et al., 2023) and collaborative interorganizational projects (IOPs) (Wang et al., 2025) where power and accountability span multiple tiers. Moreover, there is scope for addressing government/community interfaces, particularly in sustainability-oriented projects (Maqbool & Sridhar, 2024; Ninan et al., 2024), to align governance with societal goals such as emission reduction or social inclusion using social science theories.

Third, the literature reflects a shift from profit-centric governance to viability preservation, yet theoretical integration remains nascent (Bakhshi 2023). For instance, how can governance frameworks balance financial, social, and environmental outcomes? Maqbool and Sridhar (2024) and Ninan et al. (2024) offer starting points for context-specific models. In addition, complexity-aware governance and dynamic capabilities require deeper theorization, especially for projects facing climate or geopolitical disruptions (Shenoy & Mahanty, 2024). With digitization and AI, research must address biases in automated governance (e.g., automated contracting system) and inclusivity gaps (Gupta & Jha, 2023).

Fourth, emerging technologies, such as AI and blockchain, are reshaping governance but lack theoretical grounding (Müller et al., 2024). Future research should further explore the interplay between AI and governance across different levels. Research questions such as: “How can generative AI support adaptive governance (e.g., real-time stakeholder analysis)?” represent promising directions for inquiry. Ethical risks (e.g., bias amplification) demand project-specific scrutiny. Blockchain-enabled governance (Hunhevicz et al., 2024) challenges traditional hierarchies, requiring new theories (e.g., institutional cryptoeconomics). Furthermore, while digitalization projects generate vast data (e.g., internet of things [IoT], building information modeling [BIM]), their use for governance (e.g., predictive analytics) remains undertheorized (Bakhshi et al., 2024).

Fifth, governance research must transcend traditional project-based industries to address grand challenges (Whyte et al., 2022). For example, how can governance facilitate large-scale initiatives (e.g., sustainable food projects, healthcare equity)? Lessons from development projects (Bandé et al., 2024) and transnational megaprojects (Fu et al., 2024) are instructive. Besides, projects increasingly drive sustainability transitions (Daniel, 2022) and governance theories could be applied to account for their role in systemic change.

Last, the future of project governance research lies in bridging different approaches—combining theory-driven rigor (e.g., institutional or complexity lenses) with practice-driven adaptability (Musawir et al., 2023). Furthermore, interdisciplinary theorizing that integrates insights from political science, social psychology, and ecology presents valuable directions for future research (Kuitert et al., 2023). Ethical foresight is another promising area, where scholars could proactively address equity, transparency, and accountability within governance designs (Castro & Sainati, 2024).

By addressing these gaps, the field can evolve from fragmented approaches to a cohesive, future-ready framework for interrogating and improving project governance.

Conclusion

We have examined the most commonly applied theories in project governance research across 636 articles. As projects continue to evolve in scale and complexity, so do the themes and theories that underpin this crucial domain. We believe that mapping out the evolving interplay between project governance themes and theories can help readers navigate this challenging terrain. Although project governance research has little more than two decades of history, the field has grown rapidly in breadth and depth—from its beginnings with small numbers of theoretically disconnected cases studies into a highly interconnected field with a strong cross-pollination among these dominant theories: agency theory, transaction cost theory, institutional theory, and stakeholder theory.

The realm of project governance has undergone significant evolution over these two decades. Our findings reveal an emerging strong focus on the streams of governance as a system of control and relationships, with less attention given to governance as processes. Furthermore, although the literature acknowledges the influence of contextual factors, more research is needed to understand how governance strategies adapt to different project environments. Our analysis also uncovers potentially useful or interesting theories that have rarely been employed. These gaps present valuable opportunities for future research endeavours. By mapping out the status quo and longitudinal trends of project governance research, the presented findings aim to provide inspiration and guidance for researchers wishing to enter into or further contribute to this active and tightly knit field by building on the highlighted strengths and bridging the identified gaps. A more integrated theoretical foundations of project governance with a better understanding of the relative thematic fitness of diverse theoretical approaches to project governance will drive practical progress in a world where projects are increasingly expected to deliver lasting social, economic, and environmental benefits.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Javad Bakhshi

Petr Matous

Author Biographies

Javad Bakhshi coordinates and lectures in project management at the School of Business, University of Wollongong. He holds a PhD in Project Management from the University of Sydney. His research interests focus on complexity, governance, digitalization, system of systems, and project architecture. He also serves as an associate editor for the Journal of Responsible Production and Consumption. He can be contacted at jbakhshi@uow.edu.au

Petr Matous is an associate professor at the University of Sydney and Associate Head of School for Research in the School of Project Management. Dr. Matous’s modeling of personal and organizational networks based on fieldwork across multiple continents has informed projects and programs in diverse communities, particularly those with limited resources or affected by disasters. He teaches courses on management of innovation projects and is the recipient of the University of Tokyo President’s Award and the University of Sydney, Vice-Chancellor Award for Excellence. He can be contacted at petr.matous@sydney.edu.au

Lynn Crawford has been a leading advocate for project management as a discipline and profession since the late 1990s and played a pivotal role in founding the Global Alliance for the Project Professions (GAPPS). At the University of Sydney, she oversaw the establishment of the School of Project Management, a milestone in recognition of project management as an academic discipline. Lynn has over two decades’ experience working globally with corporations and government agencies to build project and program management capability and promote knowledge sharing. Her research focuses on competence, governance, project-based work and careers, organizational change, sectoral differences in practice, and links between productivity and well-being. She has authored key publications in these areas. Now an Honorary Professor at the University of Sydney, she is a Life Fellow of AIPM, Honorary Fellow of IPMA and APM (UK), and recipient of several international research and lifetime achievement awards. She can be contacted at lynn.crawford@sydney.edu.au

Appendix B.

List of Theories Referenced in Project Governance Research

Institutional theory	Sociological theory	Social Cognitive theory
Social Exchange theory	Rational Choice theory	Fairness Heuristic theory
Upper Echelons theory	Viable System Model theory	Strategic Management theory
Translation theory	Multilevel Governance theory	Realist Social theory
Network theory	Paradox theory	Maslow's theory
Control theory	Special Purpose Vehicles theory	Governmentality theory
Transaction Cost Economics theory	Behavior Control theory	Management theory
Stakeholder theory	Complexity theory	Project Management theory
Process theory	Commitment–Trust theory	Planned Change theory
Contingency theory	Tournament theory	Variance theory
Prospect theory	Auction theory	Conventions theory
Stewardship theory	Luhmann theory	Graph theory
Contract theory	Expectancy theory	Decision theory
Confirmatory theory	Planned Behavior theory	Principal–Steward theory
Organisation theory	Elite theory	Evolutionary Governance theory
Actor–Network theory	Legitimacy theory	Behavioral Contract theory
Relational Exchange theory	Commitment theory	Ethical Climate theory
Social Sciences theory	Partnering theory	Social Systems theory
Agency theory	Fuzzy Set theory	Complex Network theory
Neo-Institutional theory	Capital Structure theory	Elf-Determination theory
Principal–Agent theory	Incentive theory	Organizational Capability theory
Knowledge theory	Best Value Procurement theory	Probability theory
Governance theory	Organizational Behavior theory	Structuration theory
Innovation theory	Relational Governance theory	Corporate Governance theory
Resource Dependency theory	Real Options theory	Transformation-Flow-Value theory
Strategy theory	Trust theory	Utility theory
Bayesian Decision theory	Factor theory	Strain theory
Procedural Justice theory	Critical Mass theory	Organizational Learning theory
Game theory	Property Right theory	Balanced Leadership theory
Firm theory	Social Network theory	Organizational Ecology theory
Alliance theory	Moment Estimation theory	Intellectual Capital theory
Relational Contracting theory	Constraints theory	Culture and Whistleblowing theory
Social Capital theory	Contractual Governance theory	String theory
Leadership theory	Equity theory	Behavioral Game theory
Ownership theory	Relational Contract theory	Rational-Choice Reputation theory
Grounded theory	Systems theory	Situated Action theory
Shareholder theory	Interorganizational theory	Social Information Processing theory
Projectification theory	Social theory	Activity theory
Organizational institutional theory	Knowledge inertia theory	Leader–member theory
Organizational Knowledge Creation theory	Political governance theory	Common pool resource governance theory
Measurement theory	Negotiation theory	Public policy theory
behavioral integrity theory	Emergent theory	Social identity theory
Social value theory	Time theory	Organizational identification theory
Justice theory	Ethnographic theory	Planned Behavior Questionnaire theory
Behavioral theory	Construal Level theory	Ambidexterity theory

References

Abdul-Aziz

A. R

. (2012). Control mechanisms exercised in Malaysian housing public-private partnerships. Construction Management and Economics, 30(1), 37–55.

Abednego

M. P.

Ogunlana

S. O

. (2006a). Good project governance for proper risk allocation in public-private partnerships in Indonesia. International Journal of Project Management, 24(7), 622–634.

Abednego

M. P.

Ogunlana

S. O

. (2006b). Proper risk allocation through good project governance for better project performance: Case studies of tollway projects under public-private partnership procurement system . Proceedings of the EASEC-10, Bangkok, pp. 209–214.

Adami

V. S.

Verschoore

J. R

. (2018). Implications of network relations for the governance of complex projects. Project Management Journal, 49(2), 71–88.

Agarchand

Laishram

. (2017). Sustainable infrastructure development challenges through PPP procurement process: Indian perspective. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 10(3), 642–662.

Ahola

Ruuska

Artto

Kujala

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

Aletras

Tsarapatsanis

Preoţiuc-Pietro

Lampos

. (2016). Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: A natural language processing perspective. PeerJ Computer Science, 2, e93.

Association for Project Management (APM). (2004). Directing change: A guide to governance of project management . APM.

Arranz

de Arroyabe

J. C. F.

(2012). Effect of formal contracts, relational norms and trust on performance of joint research and development projects. British Journal of Management, 23(4), 575–588.

10.

Artto

Kujala

. (2008). Project business as a research field. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1(4), 469–497.

11.

Aubry

Richer

M. C.

Lavoie-Tremblay

. (2014). Governance performance in complex environment: The case of a major transformation in a university hospital. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1333–1345.

12.

Bakhshi

(2016). Exploring project complexities and their problems: A critical review of the literature. (Master of Philosophy), The University of Adelaide, South Australia.

13.

Bakhshi

. (2023). The influence of governance and complexity on project outcomes in international development (Doctoral thesis, The University of Sydney). The University of Sydney eScholarship Repository. https://hdl.handle.net/2123/32297

14.

Bakhshi

Golzad

Martek

Hosseini

M. R.

Papadonikolaki

. (2024). Unveiling the complexity code: Navigating BIM-enabled projects with a project management complexity index. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print).

15.

Bandé

Ika

L. A.

Ouédraogo

. (2024). Beneficiary participation is an imperative, not an option, but does it really work in international development projects? International Journal of Project Management, 42(1), 102561.

16.

Bastian

Heymann

Jacomy

. (2009, March). Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks . In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 361–362).

17.

Bathallath

Smedberg

Å.

Kjellin

. (2019). The viable system model for diagnosing and handling IT-project interdependencies in large portfolios. International Journal of Information Technology Project Management, 10(1), 72–87.

18.

Baugh

. (2015). Environmental scanning implications in the governance of complex systems. International Journal of System of Systems Engineering, 6(1–2), 127–143.

19.

Bekker

M. C

. (2014). Project governance: “schools of thought.” South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 17(1), 22–32.

20.

Bekker

M. C.

Steyn

. (2009). Project governance: definition and framework. Journal of Contemporary Management, 6(1), 214–228.

21.

Biesenthal

Wilden

. (2014). Multi-level project governance: Trends and opportunities. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1291–1308.

22.

Borgatti

S. P.

Everett

M. G.

Freeman

L. C

. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Analytic Technologies, 6, 12–15.

23.

Boyack

K. W.

Klavans

. (2010). Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2389–2404.

24.

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.

25.

Brunet

Choinière

. (2025). Governance framework trajectory for major public projects: The case of Canada. Project Management Journal, 56(1), 74–89.

26.

Brunet

Petit

M.-C.

Romero-Torres

. (2024). Interorganizational design for collaborative governance in co-owned major projects: An engaged scholarship approach. Project Management Journal, 55(5), 580–598.

27.

Cameron

. (2006). Governance structure, mechanisms and methods for managing collaborative eBusiness projects. Journal on Chain and Network Science, 6(2), 155–174.

28.

Cannon

J. P.

Achrol

R. S.

Gundlach

G. T

. (2000). Contracts, norms, and plural form governance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 180–194.

29.

Cao

Swain

A. K.

Sirisomboonsuk

V. C

. (2024). Effects of authentic leadership, behavioral integrity, and project governance on project performance. Project Management Journal, 55(4), 441–460.

30.

Carter

Moorthy

Walters

. (2016). Enterprise architecture view of complex system governance. International Journal of System of Systems Engineering, 7(1), 95–108.

31.

Castro

Sainati

. (2024). Bridging the gap: Reintegrating legal perspectives into project management. Project Leadership and Society, 5, 100154.

32.

Cerić

Vukomanović

Ivić

Kolarić

. (2021). Trust in megaprojects: A comprehensive literature review of research trends. International Journal of Project Management, 39(4), 325–338.

33.

Chakkol

Selviaridis

Finne

. (2018). The governance of collaboration in complex projects. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 38(4), 997–1019.

34.

Chinyio

E. A.

Akintoye

. (2008). Practical approaches for engaging stakeholders: findings from the UK. Construction Management and Economics, 26(6), 591–599.

35.

Crawford

L. H.

Helm

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

36.

Daniel

P. A

. (2022). Multi-level perspective framework in macro project studies: Towards a complex project organizing approach to sustainability transitions. International Journal of Project Management, 40(8), 865–870.

37.

Delhi

V. S. K.

Mahalingam

Palukuri

. (2012). Governance issues in BOT based PPP infrastructure projects in India. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 2(2), 234–249.

38.

Derakhshan

Turner

Mancini

. (2019). Project governance and stakeholders: A literature review. International Journal of Project Management, 37(1), 98–116.

39.

Devapriya

K. A. K

. (2006). Governance issues in financing of public-private partnership organisations in network infrastructure industries. International Journal of Project Management, 24(7), 557–565.

40.

Eshuis

Gerrits

. (2021). The limited transformational power of adaptive governance: A study of institutionalization and materialization of adaptive governance. Public Management Review, 23(2), 276–296.

41.

Fan

Breslin

Callahan

J. L.

Iszatt-White

. (2022). Advancing literature review methodology through rigour, generativity, scope and transparency. International Journal of Management Reviews, 24(2), 171–180.

42.

Fereday

Muir-Cochrane

. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92.

43.

Fernandes

E. B.

Wegner

Möllering

. (2023). Governance of interorganizational projects: A process-based approach applied to a Latin American–European case. Project Management Journal, 54(3), 219–234.

44.

Ferrer

P. S. S.

Araújo Galvão

G. D.

de Carvalho

Monteiro

, M. (2021). The missing link in project governance: Permeability and influence of governance precepts on decision making in the project domain. Project Management Journal, 52(1), 45–60.

45.

Leiringer

Gottlieb

S. C

. (2024). Navigating institutional demands: Organizational responses to institutional complexity in megaproject delivery. International Journal of Project Management, 42(4), 102602.

46.

Gao

Chen

Wang

. (2018). Addressing project complexity: The role of contractual functions. Journal of Management in Engineering, 34(3), 04018011.

47.

Gaur

Kumar

. (2018). A systematic approach to conducting review studies: An assessment of content analysis in 25 years of IB research. Journal of World Business, 53(2), 280–289.

48.

Gerwin

Ferris

J. S

. (2004). Organizing new product development projects in strategic alliances. Organization Science, 15(1), 22–37.

49.

Gorod

Hallo

Nguyen

. (2018). A systemic approach to complex project management: Integration of command-and-control and network governance. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 35(6), 811–837.

50.

Grimsey

Lewis

M. K

. (2004). The governance of contractual relationships in public–private partnerships. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, (15), 91–109.

51.

Gupta

Jha

K. N

. (2023). A decentralized and automated contracting system using a blockchain-enabled network of stakeholders in construction megaprojects. Journal of Management in Engineering, 39(4), 04023021.

52.

Gurcaylilar-Yenidogan

Erdogan

. (2023). Opportunism still remained alive: Conditional limits of trust and contract in software projects. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 16(2), 374–404.

53.

Higgins

J. P. T.

Green

. (2008). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Vol. 5). Wiley Online Library.

54.

Hueskes

Verhoest

Block

. (2017). Governing public–private partnerships for sustainability: An analysis of procurement and governance practices of PPP infrastructure projects. International Journal of Project Management, 35(6), 1184–1195.

55.

Hunhevicz

J. J.

Hall

D. M.

Brasey

P.-A.

Bonanomi

M. M.

Fischer

. (2024). Decentralized project delivery on the crypto commons: Conceptualization, governance mechanisms, and future research directions. Project Leadership and Society, 5, 100132.

56.

Ika

Meredith

Zwikael

. (2024). Project governance: The impact of environmental changes on governance adaptations in large-scale projects. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 17(4/5), 829–854.

57.

International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2015). ISO/IEC 38500:2015 – Information technology—Governance of IT for the organization (2nd ed.). ISO. https://www.iso.org/standard/62816.html

58.

Ireland

. (2016). Governance of collaborative system of systems. International Journal of System of Systems Engineering, 7(1), 159–188.

59.

Kivilä

Martinsuo

Vuorinen

. (2017). Sustainable project management through project control in infrastructure projects. International Journal of Project Management, 35(6), 1167–1183.

60.

Klein

Müller

. (2020). Literature review expectations of Project Management Journal®. Project Management Journal, 51(2), 239–241.

61.

Kor

Y. Y.

Mahoney

J. T

. (2005). How dynamics, management, and governance of resource deployments influence firm-level performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26(5), 489–496.

62.

Kuitert

Volker

Hermans

M. H

. (2023). Definitely not a walk in the park: Coping with competing values in complex project networks. Project Management Journal, 54(1), 19–34.

63.

Kummamuru

Hussaini

S. W

. (2016). Designing an organization structure for large and complex IT programs using the Viable System Model (VSM), In Proceedings of the TENCON 2015—IEEE Region 10 Conference (pp. 1–5). IEEE.

64.

Lappi

Karvonen

Lwakatare

L. E.

Aaltonen

Kuvaja

. (2018). Toward an improved understanding of agile project governance: A systematic literature review. Project Management Journal, 49(6), 39–63.

65.

Larcker

Tayan

. (2015). Corporate governance matters: A closer look at organizational choices and their consequences. Pearson Education.

66.

Lehtinen

Aaltonen

. (2020). Organizing external stakeholder engagement in inter-organizational projects: Opening the black box. International Journal of Project Management, 38(2), 85–98.

67.

Lello

D. S.

Huang

Kansheba

J. M

. (2024). Knowledge ambidexterity in construction project-based organizations: Predicaments of knowledge networking intention within outbound consultant-supplier interfaces. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 17(1), 126–152.

68.

Deng

. (2024). The impact of cross-organizational private relationships on cooperative behavior in construction projects: Evidence from Chinese construction industry. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 17(3), 476–503.

69.

Zeng

Lin

Chen

Shi

J. J

. (2017). The societal governance of megaproject social responsibility. International Journal of Project Management, 35(7), 1365–1377.

70.

Manning

. (2005). Managing project networks as dynamic organizational forms: Learning from the TV movie industry. International Journal of Project Management, 23(5), 410–414.

71.

Maqbool

Sridhar

. (2024). Governing public–private partnerships of sustainable construction projects in an opportunistic setting. Project Management Journal, 55(1), 86–101.

72.

Martinez Sanz

M. M.

Ortiz-Marcos

(2020). Dimensions of knowledge governance in a multi-PMO project context. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 13(7), 1423–1441.

73.

McGrath

S. K.

Whitty

S. J

. (2020). What do project management practitioners think governance is? A study on perceptions in Queensland, Australia. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 13(5), 961–980.

74.

Müller

. (2014). Ethics and governance in the temporary organization. In Klimoski

Dugan

Messikomer

Chiocchio

(Eds.), Advancing human resource project management (pp. 489–512). Jossey-Bass.

75.

Müller

. (2016). Governance and governmentality for projects: Enablers, practices, and consequences . Taylor and Francis Inc.

76.

Müller

Andersen

E. S.

Kvalnes

Shao

Sankaran

Turner

Rodney

, J., . . . Gudergan, S. (2013). The interrelationship of governance, trust, and ethics in temporary organizations. Project Management Journal, 44(4), 26–44.

77.

Müller

Locatelli

Holzmann

Nilsson

Sagay

. (2024). Artificial intelligence and project management: Empirical overview, state of the art, and guidelines for future research. Project Management Journal, 55(1), 9–15.

78.

Müller

Pemsel

Shao

. (2014). Organizational enablers for governance and governmentality of projects: A literature review. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1309–1320.

79.

Müller

Pemsel

Shao

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

80.

Musawir

A. U

. (2025). Revisiting the principal–agent framework in the context of projects: Drawing parallels with corporate governance. Project Management Journal, 56(1), 41–56.

81.

Musawir

A. U.

Abd-Karim

S. B.

Mohd-Danuri

M. S

. (2020). Project governance and its role in enabling organizational strategy implementation: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Project Management, 38(1), 1–16.

82.

Musawir

A. U.

Mohd-Danuri

M. S.

Abd-Karim

S. B

. (2023). Making sense of project governance and its role in strategy implementation: A governance-as-practice perspective. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 17(1), 50–76.

83.

Mysore

Kirytopoulos

Ahn

. (2021). Adversarial factors in multi-stakeholders’ engagement of global-IT projects. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 14(2), 445–471.

84.

Nauman

Basit

A. A.

Munir

Iqbal

M. S

. (2024). When and how servant leadership leads to megaproject success: The roles of project governance and interpersonal trust. Project Management Journal, 55(3), 297–312.

85.

Nihoul

J. A.

Miralles

Neamtu

. (2023). Understanding response to perturbations in collaborative projects from a complex generative and adaptive systems perspective. Project Leadership and Society, 4, 100106.

86.

Ninan

Clegg

Mahalingam

Sankaran

. (2022). Governance through trust: Community engagement in an Australian city rebuilding precinct. Project Management Journal, 55(1), 16–30.

87.

Ninan

Nelen

Middelbeek

Hardjosusono

S. S.

Kromwijk

Cheaz

Kalela

. (2024). Managing stakeholders for implementing innovations: The case of a flood protection project in Kenya. Project Leadership and Society, 5, 100153.

88.

Owen

. (2013). Game theory. Emerald Group Publishing.

89.

Patel

Robinson

. (2010). Impact of governance on project delivery of complex NHS PFI/PPP schemes. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 15(3), 216–234.

90.

Peterson

. (2004). Crafting information technology governance. Information Systems Management, 21(4), 7–22.

91.

Project Management Institute (PMI) . (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide)—Seventh edition. PMI.

92.

Pryke

Pearson

. (2006). Project governance: Case studies on financial incentives. Building Research & Information, 34(6), 534–545.

93.

Pryke

S. D

. (2004). Analysing construction project coalitions: Exploring the application of social network analysis. Construction Management and Economics, 22(8), 787–797.

94.

QSR International Pty Ltd. (2018). NVivo (Version 12). https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home

95.

Reve

Levitt

R. E

. (1984). Organization and governance in construction. International Journal of Project Management, 2(1), 17–25.

96.

Ruuska

Artto

Aaltonen

Lehtonen

. (2009). Dimensions of distance in a project network: Exploring Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power plant project. International Journal of Project Management, 27(2), 142–153.

97.

Salas

Kosarzycki

M. P.

Burke

C. S.

Fiore

S. M.

Stone

D. L

. (2002). Emerging themes in distance learning research and practice: Some food for thought. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(2), 135–153.

98.

Sarhan

Pasquire

Manu

King

. (2017). Contractual governance as a source of institutionalised waste in construction: A review, implications, and road map for future research directions. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 10(3), 550–577.

99.

Schwaninger

. (2019). Governance for intelligent organizations: A cybernetic contribution. Kybernetes, 48(1), 35–57.

100.

Scoleze Ferrer

P. S.

Galvão

G. D. A.

de Carvalho

M. M.

(2020). Tensions between compliance, internal controls and ethics in the domain of project governance. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 13(4), 845–865.

101.

Shenoy

Mahanty

. (2024). Owner capabilities in project organizing: Managing disruptions on infrastructure projects. Project Leadership and Society, 5, 100124.

102.

Shiferaw

A. T.

Klakegg

O. J.

Haavaldsen

. (2012). Governance of public investment projects in Ethiopia. Project Management Journal, 43(4), 52–69.

103.

Song

Liu

Feng

Müller

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

104.

Statsenko

Gorod

Ireland

. (2018). A complex adaptive systems governance framework for regional supply networks. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 23(4), 293–312.

105.

Statsenko

Samaraweera

Bakhshi

Chileshe

. (2022). Construction 4.0 technologies and applications: A systematic literature review of trends and potential areas for development. Construction Innovation (ahead-of-print).

106.

Stefano

Denicol

Broyd

Davies

. (2023). What are the strategies to manage megaproject supply chains? A systematic literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Project Management, 41(3), 102457.

107.

The EndNote Team . (2013). EndNote (Version EndNote X9) [64 bit] . Clarivate.

108.

Thiry

Deguire

. (2007). Recent developments in project-based organisations. International Journal of Project Management, 25(7), 649–658.

109.

Thorogood

Yetton

Vlasic

Spiller

. (2004). Raise your glasses—The water's magic! Strategic IT at SA Water: A case study in alignment, outsourcing and governance. Journal of Information Technology, 19(2), 130–139.

110.

Turner

J. R

. (2004). Farsighted project contract management: Incomplete in its entirety. Construction Management and Economics, 22(1), 75–83.

111.

Turner

J. R.

Keegan

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

112.

Turner

J. R.

Keegan

. (2001). Mechanisms of governance in the project-based organization: Roles of the broker and steward. European Management Journal, 19(3), 254–267.

113.

Turner

J. R.

Müller

. (2004). Communication and co-operation on projects between the project owner as principal and the project manager as agent. European Management Journal, 22(3), 327–336.

114.

Unterhitzenberger

Müller

Vaagaasar

A. L.

Alonderiene

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

115.

van den Hurk

Verhoest

(2015). The governance of public–private partnerships in sports infrastructure: Interfering complexities in Belgium. International Journal of Project Management, 33(1), 201–211.

116.

Walker

Lloyd-Walker

. (2014). Client-side project management capabilities: Dealing with ethical dilemmas. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 7(4), 566–589.

117.

Wang

Müller

Zhu

. (2023). Network governance for interorganizational temporary organizations: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Project Management Journal, 54(1), 35–51.

118.

Wang

Liu

. (2025). Project governance and governance of interorganizational project networks: Toward understanding their relationships and future research agenda. Project Management Journal, 56(1), 31–40.

119.

Wang

Yang

Chan

A. P. C.

Liu

. (2021). Are project-based organizations willing to learn compliance lessons from sanctioned organizations close to them? The moderating effect of knowledge base compatibility and strength of the event. International Journal of Project Management, 39(6), 672–682.

120.

Whyte

Naderpajouh

Clegg

Matous

Pollack

Crawford

. (2022). Project leadership: A research agenda for a changing world. Project Leadership and Society, 3, 100044.

121.

Winch

G. M

. (2001). Governing the project process: A conceptual framework. Construction Management and Economics, 19(8), 799–808.

122.

. (2020). How different strengths of ties impact project performance in megaprojects: The mediating role of trust. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 13(4), 889–912.

123.

Xie

L. L.

Xia

Shan

Chan

A. P. C

. (2017). Public participation performance in public construction projects of South China: A case study of the Guangzhou Games venues construction. International Journal of Project Management, 35(7), 1391–1401.

124.

Yan

Zhang

. (2020). Interplay of contractual governance and trust in improving construction project performance: Dynamic perspective. Journal of Management in Engineering, 36(4), 04020029.

125.

Yang

Wang

Zhu

. (2021). Enabling projects for strategic implementation: Role of designated project manager in CEO-TMT interface during project front-end investment decisions. International Journal of Project Management, 39(6), 620–632.

126.

Young

Chen

Quazi

Parry

Wong

Poon

S. K

. (2020). The relationship between project governance mechanisms and project success: An international data set. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 13(7), 1496–1521.

127.

Zaman

Damij

Khaliq

Nawaz

M. S.

Pradana

. (2022). Feeling “holier than thou”: Exploring the critical nexus between project governance, exploitative leadership and multi-dimensional success in ICT projects. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 15(5), 816–841.

128.

Zhang

Lai

Chen

. (2024). Complements or substitutes? Recipes of contract design, contract enforcement, and trust for enhanced project performance. International Journal of Project Management, 42(3), 102587.

129.

Zhang

Gao

Feng

Sun

. (2015). PPP application in infrastructure development in China: Institutional analysis and implications. International Journal of Project Management, 33(3), 497–509.

130.

Zwikael

Smyrk

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

From Control to Adaptation: Mapping Theoretical Developments of Project Governance Research

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Defining the Concept and Scope of Project Governance Research

Research Method

Results and Discussion

First Period—Introductory Stage: 1999–2005

Second Period—Growth Stage: 2006–2012

Third Period—Maturity Stage: 2013–2019

Fourth Period—Consolidation Stage: 2020–2024

The Interplay Between Governance Research Themes and Theories

Toward a Theory-Informed Research Agenda for the Projects of the Future

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Author Biographies

References