PROJECT GOVERNANCE: "SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT"

被引:16
作者
Bekker, Michiel C. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Pretoria, Grad Sch Technol Management, ZA-0002 Pretoria, South Africa
来源
SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC AND MANAGEMENT SCIENCES | 2014年 / 17卷 / 01期
关键词
project governance; governance of projects; meta-governance; governance through projects; project management;
D O I
10.4102/sajems.v17i1.595
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
The terminology, definition and context of project governance have become a focal subject for research and discussions in project management literature. This article reviews literature on the subject of project governance and categorises the arguments into three schools of thought namely the single-firm school, multi-firm school and large capital governance school. The single-firm school is concerned with governance principles related to intra-organisational projects and practice these principles at a technical level. The multi-firm school addresses the governance principles concerned with two of more organisations participating on a contractual basis on the same project and focuses its governance efforts at the technical and strategic level. The large capital school considers projects as temporary organisations, forming their own entity and establishing governance principles at an institutional level. From these schools of thought it can be concluded that the definition of project governance is a function of stakeholder complexity and functional positioning in the organisation. It is also evident that further research is required to incorporate other governance variables and related theories such as transaction theory, social networks and agency theory. The development of project governance frameworks should also consider the complexity of projects spanning across international companies, across country borders and incorporating different value systems, legal systems, corporate governance guidelines, religions and business practices.
引用
收藏
页码:22 / 32
页数:11
相关论文
共 39 条
[31]   A new governance approach for multi-firm projects: Lessons from Olkiluoto 3 and Flamanville 3 nuclear power plant projects [J].
Ruuska, Inkeri ;
Ahola, Tuomas ;
Artto, Karlos ;
Locatelli, Giorgio ;
Mancini, Mauro .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT, 2011, 29 (06) :647-660
[32]  
SAMSET K., 2006, EURAM 2006 CONFERENC
[33]   Risk, uncertainty and governance in megaprojects: A critical discussion of alternative explanations [J].
Sanderson, Joe .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT, 2012, 30 (04) :432-443
[34]  
Sharma D., 2009, Journal of Database Marketing Customer Strategy Management, V16, P29, DOI [10.1057/dbm.2009.6, DOI 10.1057/DBM.2009.6]
[35]   An investigation of governance frameworks for public projects in Norway and the UK [J].
Williams, Terry ;
Klakegg, Ole Jonny ;
Magnussen, Ole Morten ;
Glasspool, Helene .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT, 2010, 28 (01) :40-50
[36]   THE ECONOMICS OF ORGANIZATION - THE TRANSACTION COST APPROACH [J].
WILLIAMSON, OE .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, 1981, 87 (03) :548-577
[37]  
Winch G., 1989, CONSTR MANAG ECON, V7, P331, DOI [DOI 10.1080/01446198900000032, 10.1080/01446198900000032]
[38]  
Winch G.M., 2001, CONSTR MANAG ECON, V19, P799, DOI [DOI 10.1080/01446190110074264, 10.1080/01446190110074264]
[39]  
YILIN Y., 2008, PROCEEDINGS OF THE 4