Governance Shifts and Short-term Performance

doi:10.1017/9781009322737.013

Chapter 10 - Governance Shifts and Short-term Performance

from Part II - Deviating from Plans

Published online by Cambridge University Press: aN Invalid Date NaN

Maude Brunet

Edited by

Lavagnon A. Ika and

Jeffrey K. Pinto

Show author details

Lavagnon A. Ika: Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Jeffrey K. Pinto: Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University

Book contents

Get access

Summary

It is well recognized that the mode of governance adopted for a project can directly impact its performance. Building on previous research on project governance and performance, this chapter seeks to address governance shifts and their effects on (short-term) performance. Three types of governance are reviewed: hierarchical, network and heterarchical, along with their dynamic dimension. Relying on actor-network theory (ANT), the role of the project is explored as a powerful actant. This theoretical and methodological lens enables us to understand shifts in project governance and conceptualize potential impacts on performance, which are discussed both from a proactive and reactive perspective. Lastly, avenues for future research are suggested regarding governance shifts and their impact on performance.

Keywords

Governance shifts Performance Actor-Network Theory

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Cambridge Handbook of Project Behavior , pp. 158 - 168

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009322737.013 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adami, V. S., and Verschoore, J. R. (2018). Implications of network relations for the governance of complex projects. Project Management Journal, 49(2), 71–88.10.1177/875697281804900205CrossRef Google Scholar

Ahola, T., Ruuska, I., Artto, K., and Kujala, J. (2014). What is project governance and what are its origins? International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1321–1332.10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.09.005CrossRef Google Scholar

Akrich, M., Callon, M., and Latour, B. (2006). Sociologie de la traduction: Textes fondateurs. École des mines de Paris.10.4000/books.pressesmines.1181CrossRef Google Scholar

Aubry, M. (2011). The social reality of organisational project management at the interface between networks and hierarchy. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 4(3), 436–456.10.1108/17538371111144166CrossRef Google Scholar

Aubry, M., Richer, M. C., and Lavoie-Tremblay, M. (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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ben Abdallah, S., El–Boukri, S., Floricel, S., Hudon, P.–A., Brunet, M., Petit, M.–C., Aubry, M. (2022). A process-oriented framework to measure development performance and success of megaprojects. International Journal of Project Management, 40(6), 685–702.10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.06.005CrossRef Google Scholar

Biesenthal, C., and Wilden, R. (2014). Multi-level project governance: Trends and opportunities. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1291–1308.10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.06.005CrossRef Google Scholar

Blackburn, S. (2002). The project manager and the project-network. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 199–204.10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00069-2CrossRef Google Scholar

Bröchner, J. (2022). Project tragedies. International Journal of Project Management, 40(5), 467–470.10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.04.001CrossRef Google Scholar

Brunet, M., and Aubry, M. (2016). The three dimensions of a governance framework for major public projects. International Journal of Project Management, 34(8), 1596–1607.10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.09.004CrossRef Google Scholar

Brunet, M., and Aubry, M. (2018). The governance of major public infrastructure projects: The process of translation. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 11(1), 80–103.10.1108/IJMPB-08-2017-0095CrossRef Google Scholar

Brunet, M., and Cohendet, P. (2021). Transforming construction: Heterarchical megaproject ecologies and the management of innovation. Construction Management and Economics, 1–14.Google Scholar

Burga, R., and Rezania, D. (2017). Project accountability: An exploratory case study using actor–network theory. International Journal of Project Management, 35(6), 1024–1036.10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.001CrossRef Google Scholar

Clegg, S. (2019). Governmentality. Project Management Journal, 50(3), 266–270.10.1177/8756972819841260CrossRef Google Scholar

Clegg, S. R., Tyrone, P., Marosszeky, M., and Rura-Polley, T. (2006). Making the future perfect: Constructing the Olympic dream (pp. 265–293). In Hodgson, D. and Cicmil, S. (eds.). Making projects critical. Palgrave.CrossRef Google Scholar

Czarniawska, B. (2006). Book review: Bruno Latour: Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory . Organization Studies, 27(10), 1553–1557.10.1177/0170840606071164CrossRef Google Scholar

DeFillippi, R., and Sydow, J. (2016). Project networks: Governance choices and paradoxical tensions. Project Management Journal, 47(5), 6–17.10.1177/875697281604700502CrossRef Google Scholar

Di Maddaloni, F., and Derakhshan, R. (2022). Towards a conceptual framework for unfolding stakeholder’s perceptions.” Presented at the European Academy of Management, June, Winterthur.Google Scholar

Ezzamel, M., and Reed, M. (2008). Governance: A code of multiple colours. Human Relations, 61(5), 597–615.10.1177/0018726708092316CrossRef Google Scholar

Floricel, S., Piperca, S., and Banik, M. (2011). Increasing project flexibility: The response capacity of complex projects. Project Management Institute.Google Scholar

Gil, N., and Fu, Y. (2022). Megaproject performance, value creation, and value distribution: An organizational governance perspective. Academy of Management Discoveries, 8(2), 224–251.10.5465/amd.2020.0029CrossRef Google Scholar

Gil, N., and Pinto, J. K. (2018). Polycentric organizing and performance: A contingency model and evidence from megaproject planning in the UK. Research Policy, 47, 717–734.10.1016/j.respol.2018.02.001CrossRef Google Scholar

Grabher, G. (2004). Learning in projects, remembering in networks? Communality, sociality, and connectivity in project ecologies. European Urban and Regional Studies, 11(2), 103–123.10.1177/0969776404041417CrossRef Google Scholar

Gubert, L. (2007). Book review: Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. By Bruno Latour. Critical Sociology, 33(3), 603–607.10.1163/156916307X189086CrossRef Google Scholar

Ika, L. A., and Pinto, J. K. (2022). The “re-meaning” of project success: Updating and recalibrating for a modern project management. International Journal of Project Management, 40(7), 835–848.10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.08.001CrossRef Google Scholar

Jones, C., Hesterly, W. S., and Borgatti, S. P. (1997). A general theory of network governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 22, 911–945.10.2307/259249CrossRef Google Scholar

Latour, B. (1993). Aramis ou l’amour des techniques. La Découverte.Google Scholar

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199256044.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Li, Y., Lu, Y., Ma, L., and Kwak, Y. H. (2018). Evolutionary governance for mega-event projects (Meps): A case study of the World Expo 2010 in China. Project Management Journal, 49(1), 57–78.10.1177/875697281804900105CrossRef Google Scholar

Love, P. E. D., Ika, L. A., Matthews, J., and Fang, W. (2021). Large-scale transport infrastructure project performance: Generating a narrative of context and meaning. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 70(10), 3637–3652.10.1109/TEM.2021.3094511CrossRef Google Scholar

Manning, S. (2017). The rise of project network organizations: Building core teams and flexible partner pools for interorganizational projects. Research Policy, 46(8), 1399–1415.10.1016/j.respol.2017.06.005CrossRef Google Scholar

Martinsuo, M., and Ahola, T. (2022). Multi-project management in inter-organizational contexts. International Journal of Project Management, 40(7), 813–826.10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.09.003CrossRef Google Scholar

McGrath, S. K., and Whitty, S. J. (2015). Redefining governance: From confusion to certainty and clarity. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 8(4), 755–787.10.1108/IJMPB-10-2014-0071CrossRef Google Scholar

Miller, R., and Hobbs, B. (2005). Governance regimes for large complex projects. Project Management Journal, 36(3), 42–50.10.1177/875697280503600305CrossRef Google Scholar

Miller, R., and Lessard, D. (2000). The strategic management of large engineering projects: Shaping institutions, risks, and governance. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Missonier, S., and Loufrani-Fedida, S. (2014). Stakeholder analysis and engagement in projects: From stakeholder relational perspective to stakeholder relational ontology. International Journal of Project Management, 32(7), 1108–1122.10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.02.010CrossRef Google Scholar

Müller, R. (2009). Governance of project management. Project governance. Gower.Google Scholar

Müller, R. (2016). Organizational project governance (pp. 11–24). In Müller, R. (ed.). Governance and governmentality for projects: Enablers, practice and consequences. Routledge.10.4324/9781315683294CrossRef Google Scholar

Müller, R., Drouin, N., and Sankaran, S. (2019). Modeling organizational project management. Project Management Journal, 50(4), 499–513.10.1177/8756972819847876CrossRef Google Scholar

Müller, R., and Lecoeuvre, L. (2014). Operationalizing governance categories of projects. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1346–1357.10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.04.005CrossRef Google Scholar

Müller, R., Martinsuo, M., and Blomquist, T. (2008). Project portfolio control and portfolio management performance in different contexts. Project Management Journal, 39(3), 28–42.10.1002/pmj.20053CrossRef Google Scholar

Müller, R., Pemsel, S., and Shao, J. (2015). Organizational enablers for project governance and governmentality in project-based organizations. International Journal of Project Management, 33(4), 839–851.10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.07.008CrossRef Google Scholar

Musawir, A. u., Abd-Karim, S. B., and 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), 1–16.10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.09.007CrossRef Google Scholar

Pitsis, T. S., Sankaran, S., Gudergan, S., and Clegg, S. R. (2014). Governing projects under complexity: Theory and practice in project management. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1285–1290.10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.09.001CrossRef Google Scholar

Pollack, J., and Clegg, S. (2023). Uncovering the role of non-human actors in projects (pp. 117–126). In Winch, G. M., Brunet, M., and Cao, D. (eds.). Research handbook on complex project organizing. Edward Elgar.10.4337/9781800880283.00022CrossRef Google Scholar

Pollack, J., et al. (2013). Applying actor–network theory as a sensemaking framework for complex organisational change programs. International Journal of Project Management, 31(8), 1118–1128.10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.12.007CrossRef Google Scholar

Porsander, L. (2000). Translating a dream of immortality in a (con)temporary order. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13(1), 14–29.10.1108/09534810010310212CrossRef Google Scholar

Rouleau, L. (2007). Théories des organisations: Approches classiques, contemporaines et de l’avant-garde. Presses de l’Université du Québec.Google Scholar

Ruuska, I., Ahola, T., Artto, K., Locatelli, G., and Mancini, M. (2011). A new governance approach for multi-firm projects: Lessons from Olkiluoto 3 and Flamanville 3 nuclear power plant projects. International Journal of Project Management, 29(6), 647–660.10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.10.001CrossRef Google Scholar

Sirisomboonsuk, P., Gu, V. C., Cao, R. Q., and Burns, J. R. (2018). Relationships between project governance and information technology governance and their impact on project performance. International Journal of Project Management, 36(2), 287–300.10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.10.003CrossRef Google Scholar

Söderlund, J. (2011). Pluralism in project management: Navigating the crossroads of specialization and fragmentation. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(2), 153–176.10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00290.xCrossRef Google Scholar

Song, J., Song, L., Liu, H., Feng, Z., and Müller, R. (2022). Rethinking project governance: Incorporating contextual and practice-based views. International Journal of Project Management, 40(4), 332–346.10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.04.004CrossRef Google Scholar

Tryggestad, K., Justesen, L., and Mouritsen, J. (2013). Project temporalities: How frogs can become stakeholders. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 6(1), 69–87.10.1108/17538371311291035CrossRef Google Scholar

Unterhitzenberger, C., and Moeller, D. (2021). Fair project governance: An organisational justice approach to project governance. International Journal of Project Management, 39(6), 683–696.CrossRef Google Scholar

Vaagaasar, A. L., Hernes, T., and Dille, T. (2020). The challenges of implementing temporal shifts in temporary organizations: Implications of a situated temporal view. Project Management Journal, 51(4), 420–428.10.1177/8756972820931276CrossRef Google Scholar

Volden, G. H., and Andersen, B. (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), 174–197.10.1108/IJMPB-04-2017-0040CrossRef Google Scholar

Voordijk, H. (2021) Technical mediation and digital technologies in construction practice. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 19(2) 1–15.Google Scholar

Vukomanović, M., Cerić, A., Brunet, M., Locatelli, G., and Davies, A. (2021). Editorial: Trust and governance in megaprojects. International Journal of Project Management, 39(4), 321–324.10.1016/j.ijproman.2021.04.004CrossRef Google Scholar

Williams, T., Klakegg, O. J., Magnussen, O. M., and Glasspool, H. (2010). An Investigation of governance frameworks for public projects in Norway and the UK. International Journal of Project Management, 28(1), 40–50.10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.04.001CrossRef Google Scholar

Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. The Free Press.Google Scholar

Winch, G. M. (2014). Three domains of project organising. International Journal of Project Management, 32, 721–731.10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.10.012CrossRef Google Scholar

Winch, G. M., Brunet, M., Cao, D. (eds.). (2023). Research handbook on complex project organizing. Edward Elgar.10.4337/9781800880283CrossRef Google Scholar

Zwikael, O., and Smyrk, J. (2015). Project governance: Balancing control and trust in dealing with risk. International Journal of Project Management, 33(4), 852–862.10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.10.012CrossRef Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The PDF of this book conforms to version 2.0 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic (A) level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.

Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.