Organizational enablers for governance and governmentality of projects: A literature review

JPMA-01634; No of Pages 12

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx – xxx www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Organizational enablers for governance and governmentality of projects: A literature review Ralf Müller a,⁎, Sofia Pemsel b , Jingting Shao c a

Department of Leadership and Organizational Behaviour, BI Norwegian Business School, Nydalsveien 37, 0484 Oslo, Norway b Copenhagen Business School, Department of Organization, Denmark c Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Institute for Industrial Ecoonomics, Beijing, China Received 16 October 2013; received in revised form 6 March 2014; accepted 11 March 2014

Abstract This study identifies the organizational enablers for governance in the realm of projects. We first conceptualize organizational enablers as comprising of process facilitators and discursive abilities, each with its own factors and mechanisms. Then we apply this concept to the literature on project governance, governance of projects and governmentality. Outcomes indicate that governance is enabled through different forms of flexibility at different levels of governance, institutional setup and authority at the project level, flexible structures and mindsets of people at the organizational level, and through development of self-responsible, self-organizing people for governmentality in project settings. Questions for future research are indicated. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved. Keywords: Organizational enablers; Project governance; Governance of projects; Governmentality; Literature review

1. Introduction The literature on governance in the realm of projects often addresses different governance approaches in different contexts, such as large scale investment projects (Miller and Hobbs, 2005), NASA projects (Shenhar et al., 2005) or commercial projects (Turner and Keegan, 2001). However, there is a scarcity of literature on the organizational particularities which give rise to these governance approaches, that is, their organizational enablers (OE). In this paper we review literature to identify and propose a framework of OEs that allow project governance and governmentality to be deployed in project-based organizations. Knowledge of OEs and their constituent parts will allow organizations to develop towards preferred governance and governmentality approaches. Better understanding of the interface between OEs and governance approaches for projects and groups of projects allows one to adjust the fit between organization, ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R. Müller), sofi[email protected] (S. Pemsel), [email protected] (J. Shao).

governance, and projects, in the sense of contingency theory (Donaldson, 2001). By way of this, the paper aims to help organizations to increase efficiency and effectiveness of the project-based parts of their organization. The context of this study is project-based organizations (PBOs). Their design is often categorized by their degree of projectification from pure PBOs (business organized by projects) to the pure functional (business organized in the operational processes) (Hobday, 2000; Lindkvist, 2004). Most often PBOs are organized in a matrix structure where the line and project organizations exist alongside each other (Turner and Keegan, 2001). Accordingly, the term PBO may refer to both the project-based part of an otherwise process-oriented organization or to organizations that organize most of their internal and external activities in projects. Thus the study outcomes are of interest for organizations using projects as building blocks of their business. We address governance in the realm of projects from an organization-wide perspective in order to understand which OEs shape project governance, governance of projects, and governmentality in project-based organizations.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.007 0263-7863/00 © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved. Please cite this article as: R. Müller, et al., 2014. Organizational enablers for governance and governmentality of projects: A literature review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.007

2

R. Müller et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx

1.1. Governance in the realm of projects Project governance refers to the governance of individual projects. The Project Management Institute (PMI®) defines it as “an oversight function that is aligned with the organization's governance model and that encompasses the project life-cycle [by providing] a comprehensive, consistent method of controlling the project and ensuring its success by defining and documenting and communicating reliable, repeatable project practices” (Project Management Institute, 2013a, p. 34). Project governance is performed at the interface of the project with its parent organization and other stakeholders. Its execution is often supported by a project governance framework, which “provides the project manager and the team with structure, processes, decision-making models and tools for managing the project, while supporting and controlling the project for successful delivery” (Project Management Institute, 2013a, p. 34). Project governance differs from governance of projects, which addresses the governance of groups of projects, such as the collective governance of projects within a program or portfolio of projects, or the collective governance of all projects in an organization from the corporate or board level perspective, all of which take a broader view than the individual project (Williams et al., 2010). In the governance of projects “a project is not an objective in itself but a means of achieving strategic change or future benefits. The question is no longer whether a project is well executed or managed, but whether it is possible to create longterm value for the owner and financing party. This points more towards choosing the right investment opportunities and defining the best possible fundamental design for the project” (Klakegg, 2010, p. 27). Collectively project governance and governance of projects refer to governance of portfolios, programs, projects, and project management, all of which “coexist[s] within the corporate governance framework. It comprises the value system, responsibilities, processes and policies that allow projects to achieve organizational objectives and foster implementation that is in the best interest of all the stakeholders, internal and external, and the corporation itself.” (Müller, 2009, p. 4). Governance of projects defines the institutional setup of governance but says little about the way the governance task is designed and implemented in an organization, for example, whether governance is enforced through strict rules or through soft “cultural” values that members of an organization share and respect. This is addressed through the concept of governmentality (Clegg et al., 2002). The term is a merger of the words governance and mentality (a characteristic way of thinking). It addresses different approaches (mentalities) to the governance task. Governmentality was first developed by Michel Foucault during his lectures at the Collège de France and defined as the art and task of governance. Foucault (1991, p. 94) positions governance against governmentality by saying that “To govern means to govern things” or at least the relationship between humans and things, whereas governmentality addresses people, and once governmentality is in place the governance of ‘things’ is implied. Thus, both are entangled in organizational reality. Foucault originally addressed the specificity of contemporary neo-liberal forms of governance, which aspires to the collective interests

among people and the consent which leads them to voluntarily obey to contextual frameworks, set through the governance system, which shapes, but does not necessarily determine the actions of individuals (Clegg, 1994; Clegg et al., 2002). Foucault addressed three types of governance (individual, family, and state) and showed that governmentality is the link between them, because governmentality “is always characterized by the essential continuity of one type with the other” (Foucault, 1991, p. 94). Therefore governance at levels higher than the individual (or project) should not be discussed without governmentality as its integrating concept, linking the micro and macro-level of the organization. We transcend this approach into organizational settings by addressing individual projects and groups of projects, and governmentality as the link between them. Organizations with stricter forms of governmentality often control people's behavior, for example, by enforcing process compliance. More liberal forms of governmentality control the results of people's work, such as task outcomes. Neo-liberal forms of governance establish organizational cultures where people control themselves and their co-workers through shared values and beliefs. These forms of control are known as behavior, outcome and clan control since Ouchi's work on organizational control (Ouchi, 1979, 1980), and can be regarded as the expression of governmentality in an organization. Project management researchers have addressed governmentality in form of the suitability and limitations of neo-liberal, outcome and behavior controlled governmentality in large scale construction projects (Clegg et al., 2002), or in terms of project governance paradigms (Müller, 2009). Project governance approaches and their associated governmentality vary widely across organizations. Examples include: • Process oriented (strict) governmentality approaches with clearly defined but flexible governance structures and institutions, like in major public investment projects (Klakegg and Haavaldsen, 2011; Miller and Hobbs, 2005) • Outcome oriented (liberal) governmentality approaches, with clearly defined but, when needed, flexible governance structures, such as in customer delivery projects (Dinsmore and Rocha, 2012) • Outcome oriented (liberal) governmentality approaches, with a range of governance structures from liberal to strict, depending on the nature and level of innovation in new product development projects (Dinsmore and Rocha, 2012) • Neo-liberal governmentality approaches building on and using the values and ideologies of the project members, by applying rudimentary governance structures, such as in community-governed open source development projects, where no salaries are paid, but shared values and ideologies serve as motivator and control mechanisms (Franck and Jungwirth, 2003). 1.2. Organizational enablers The subject of OEs of governance in the realm of projects has rarely been investigated thoroughly. The Project Management Institute (PMI®) (Project Management Institute, 2013b,

Please cite this article as: R. Müller, et al., 2014. Organizational enablers for governance and governmentality of projects: A literature review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.007

R. Müller et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx

p.36) defines OEs as “structural, cultural, technological, and human-resource practices” that can be leveraged to support and sustain the implementation of strategic goals. Lindkvist (2004) identified OEs for successful organization-wide project management from a governance perspective, but was limited to a single case study in the engineering and manufacturing industry in Sweden. He identified three enablers: 1. Self-organization within defined limits. That includes an under-specification of structure within the organization, to allow for dynamic project team formation and work, plus a “mindful” system that does not require too much explanation in terms of concepts of organizational learning 2. Competence networks to enable an extended network memory. Here networks of employees are treated as knowledge containers for the entire organization 3. Responsible individuals, who aim for customer satisfaction, proper project organization, and competence development Furthermore he defines the mode of governance as one of a self-adaptive organization with the ability to change its identity, thus an organization that has developed beyond bureaucratic and cultural ruling. Other related research looked at governance institutions and their roles. This includes studies by Crawford et al. (2008) who identified the roles and work of steering groups as enablers for project success, or Blomquist and Müller (2006) who showed how middle managers enable successful program and portfolio management. Further work was done through standards developing groups, such as those for OPM3 (Project Management Institute, 2013b) and work in related disciplines which typically identify factors such as top management support, change management, centralization of decision making, formalization of procedure, organizational culture, and customer involvement (Ahadi, 2004). Most of these studies identify enabling factors and neglect that enablers vary by the perspective taken towards an organization and importance of process for Best-Practices (Maitlis and Lawrence, 2007). Moreover, most studies of organizational enablers do not provide a definition of what an organizational enabler is or their relations to other similar terms such as factors or mechanisms: this especially applies for project related research. From this we formulate our research questions: RQ1: How can Organizational Enablers be conceptualized in project related studies? RQ2: What are the Organizational Enablers for governance in the realm of projects in project-based organizations? We first conceptualize OEs and then apply this concept for the identification of OEs for governance in PBOs. The unit of analysis for RQ1 is the concept of OE and for RQ2 the OE per se, both of them for project governance, governance of projects, and governmentality. The study is conceptual in nature. Three propositions on the concept of OE are developed from existing literature and subsequently applied for the development of propositions for OEs in governance. The study is of importance for further research, as it provides a conceptualization of OEs,

3

which can serve as a basis for operationalization and measurement in future empirical studies, which will help organizations to adjust the organizational context and their project governance and governmentality. The next section of the paper describes the methodology used for this study. This is followed by a review of literature on the concept of OE, from which three propositions are derived. These propositions are applied to the literature on governance in the realm of projects, from which a series of propositions about OEs for project governance derive. The paper finishes with a discussion and conclusion on the OEs for project governance, governance of projects, and governmentality. 2. Methodology Following the quest for more evidence-based approaches in project management by Denise Rousseau (2012) and more translational research in general (Drouin et al., 2013) a systematic literature review was done. This type of review overcomes weaknesses of traditional approaches, like lack of thoroughness (Tranfield et al., 2003), lack of quality assessment of the chosen material (Harden et al., 2004), ontological and epistemological mix-up through heterogeneous sampling (Petticrew, 2001), and by following an explicit research methodology, which uses literature as input, instead of interview or questionnaire data (Harden and Thomas, 2010). The process follows Pawson et al. (2005) by: Step 1: Clarify the scope: Due to the scarcity of research papers on OEs in the realm of projects we included literature from general management to build a broad initial understanding of the concept, which allowed narrowing it later to the scope of RQ1. Therefore, our literature on OEs was driven by the question “What are enablers in management and organization theories in general and OEs in particular, in which circumstances do they work and why?” Keywords used were enabler, enabling, facilitating, allowing, permitting, supporting, and combinations thereof. The review of literature on project governance and governmentality related to RQ2 was driven by the question “What are the different approaches for embedding project governance, governance of projects, and governmentality in organizations, and what are the OEs and their underlying factors and mechanisms?” Here again, an initial broader scope in literature search allowed us to narrow the topic to that of RQ2. Keywords used were governance, projects, programs, portfolio, organizational project management, and combinations thereof. Both reviews we started with journals listed in the Financial Times FT45 ranking list, as well as the three and four star journals in the UK's Association of Business Schools Academic Journal Quality Guide (Harvey et al., 2010). The initial review of these publications allowed to add referenced papers based on their relevance for the subject. Step 2: Search for evidence: We found 142 papers on enablers and enabling, of which 52 were related to the literature review question for RQ1. Of them 20 addressed

Please cite this article as: R. Müller, et al., 2014. Organizational enablers for governance and governmentality of projects: A literature review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.007

4

R. Müller et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx

mechanisms and 31 factors. One Academy of Management Review paper was highly relevant for our study and addressed OEs in terms of process enablers and discursive abilities. A total of 91 papers were found in governance. Of them 42 were found relevant for the literature review question for RQ2. Eighteen addressed general and corporate governance, 18 project related governance, and six addressed IT and construction project governance. Step 3: Appraise primary studies and extract data: In this step we developed the categorization system (process facilitators, discursive abilities, factors, mechanisms) and populated it with evidence from the publications Step 4: Synthesize evidence and draw conclusions: In this step we synthesized and refined the findings from Step 3 contingent on their context. Using Miles and Huberman's (1994) process, we developed a specific proposition for each of the two subject areas and subsequently combined them into a tentative “model/framework”. That provides insight into the ways the two subject areas integrate as a means to find answers to the research questions. Step 5: Disseminate, implement and evaluate: We tested our conclusions in discussions with colleagues and practitioners. Finally we disseminated the results through the present paper. 3. Literature review 3.1. Organizational enablers Various types of enablers have been discussed in the fields of knowledge management (e.g. Lee and Choi, 2003; Von Krogh et al., 2000; Yang and Chen, 2007; Zheng et al., 2010), total quality management (Colurico, 2009; Robson et al., 2002), human resources management (Peris-Ortiz, 2009), organizational structures (Bhatt et al., 2010; Joyce and McGee, 1997), adoption of agile methods (Srinivasan and Lundqvist, 2009), buying behavior and decision making (Webster and Wind, 1972), business re-engineering (Ahadi, 2004), and information systems (Seddon et al., 2011; Street and Meister, 2004). These studies typically refer to enablers in general instead of OEs, or as in the case of knowledge management approaches, to knowledge enablers or knowledge management enablers. For instance, from an information system perspective, technology may be regarded as a critical enabler for work in an organization (Street and Meister, 2004; Zott and Amit, 2007) as well as in distributed contexts (Sykes et al., 2009) due to its communicative coordinative, and integrative capacity (Sinha and Van de Ven, 2005), others emphasize integration as an enabler rather than the technology itself (Seddon et al., 2011). In these studies the term organizational enabler is often not defined. Some studies use the term in the title but do not focus upon it per se (e.g. Ahadi, 2004; Anatatmula and Kanungo, 2010). Health-care literature defines enabler as “one who gives power, strength, or competency sufficient for the purpose; one who renders efficient or capable” (Kjorlie Lee and Ventres,

1981, p. 506), suggesting that enablers are not only permitting behaviors but also encouraging and perpetuating it (Kjorlie Lee and Ventres, 1981). The dictionary defines an enabler and enabling as to supply with the means, knowledge, or opportunity; make able, that is, to provide (someone) with adequate power, means, opportunity, or authority (to do something) and to make possible (Dictionary, 2013-02-01). 3.2. The theoretical lens Maitlis and Lawrence's (2007) longitudinal study of sensegiving in organizations provides the closest approximation to the present study in terms of contents (OEs) and perspective (organization theory). They conceptualize OEs in management as consisting of process facilitators and discursive abilities (explained below). Another popular structure for understanding OEs is that of mechanisms and factors (discussed below), indicated by the large number of papers using this categorization (see methodology section, step 2). Together the four dimensions (process facilitators, discursive abilities, factors, mechanisms) provide a comprehensive and relevant conceptual perspective towards the understanding of OEs in organizations which is used for structuring the further review and to build the theoretical lens of this study. 3.2.1. Mechanisms Treating mechanisms as enablers or enablers as mechanisms is suggested by, for instance Lee and Choi (2003), Colurico (2009), Zheng et al. (2010) and Venkatesh et al. (2002). A mechanism is defined as the “agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished or routine methods or procedures” (Dictionary, 2013-02-01). The two words, enablers and mechanisms, are thereby closely linked but are distinct and not synonymous. Aligned with this definition, mechanisms have been suggested to be incentives, constraints, feedbacks etc. to generate actions (Dosi, 1982). According to Grandori (2001) and Foss et al. (2010) organizational structures and incentives are mechanisms; according to Michailova and Foss (2009) organizational culture is an informal mechanism. In line with these thoughts, we suggest that an organizational enabler might include mechanisms or uses mechanisms in their actions. Proposition 1. Organizational enablers include or use organizational mechanisms to reach their goals. A few studies discuss enablers in relation to its antithesis, that is, a constraint, a disabler, an inhibitor or a barrier (Müller, 2009; Seidel et al., 2010; Webster and Wind, 1972). This may explain why few researchers treat OEs as a measureable critical success factors (CSF) (cf. Kamhawi, 2012; Wong, 2005) or just as (important) factors (e.g. Lee and Choi, 2003; Zheng et al., 2010). 3.2.2. Factors Factors are defined as power or instrument for achievement (Dictionary, 2013-02-01). In line with this, Dosi (1982), in his

Please cite this article as: R. Müller, et al., 2014. Organizational enablers for governance and governmentality of projects: A literature review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.007

R. Müller et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx

study of technological paradigms and technological trajectories, suggests that “…factors are likely to operate as focusing forces upon defined directions of technological development.” (Dosi, 1982, p. 155). Existing literature allows factors to be classified into, for example, institutional and social factors. Institutional factors may be accumulation of knowledge or selecting and focusing effects induced by different interests such as energy saving programs, military technology requirements etc. (Dosi, 1982). We thereby suggest that enablers are closely connected to factors, but are distinct because an enabler gives power to factors in specific situations. Social factors, for example in inter-firm knowledge exchanges, include factors such as cluster size, cluster age and environmental munificence which impact the kind and number of enablers that are appropriate to implement (Arikan, 2009). That is, factors may be supporting or hampering a situation/action and therefore set the arena for the enablers. Following this reasoning, a number of factors may jointly be enabling in a situation but also hampering. Hence Proposition 2. Organizational enablers include organizational factors, which can be supported or amplified through organizational mechanisms. 3.2.3. Process facilitators and discursive abilities Maitlis and Lawrence (2007) suggest that enablers involve two parts: a discursive ability of organizational actors (the actors' ability to construct and articulate persuasive accounts of the worlds) and an organizational process facilitator (routines, practices and performance). Both need to coexist for an enabler to exist. Clark et al. (2010) further investigated enablers of identity change and identified three cognitive and behavioral features underpinning the enablers; these are, projected future identity, sensegiving via image management, and collective identification. Connecting these features to the two suggested parts from Maitlis and Lawrence (2007), we suggest that the projected future relates to the discursive abilities and image management as well as collective identification: both relates to a combination of process facilitators. From this we propose. Proposition 3. Discursive abilities of the organizational actors and process facilitators are elements underpinning organizational enablers and need to coexist within the social structure of an organization. Both these elements are highly dependent upon the context they act within. That is, the relationship between the elements is simple and an enabler in one context may not be one in others (Seddon et al., 2011), or at another point of time (Gulati et al., 2012). Organizations operate in different contexts and institutional settings and give different power and allowance for features underpinning enablers (Clark et al., 2010). For example, governance is ultimately concerned with creating the conditions for ordered rule and collective action (Stoker, 1998) and from the dictionary, we could claim that governance as such is an organizational enabler that empowers factors and mechanisms to reach its goals, that is, it contains both the discursive and the process part. However, claiming that governance is an OE is

5

very broad and needs to be nuanced. Governance is executed in distinct contextual settings, implying that what may work in one institutional context does not work in another. Contextual and institutional aspects are vital ingredients of enablers, for instance when governance choices depend on the complexity of a particular situation (Mesquita and Brush, 2008). Propositions 1–3 imply that there is always intellectual capital behind enablers. Individuals or groupings thereof (i.e. institutions) amplify the factors and mechanisms that allow them to enable what is required for achieving strategic objectives. The constituencies, charters, and roles of these individuals and institutions in governance vary significantly, as shown by a series of Social Network Analyses of governance structures (e.g. Ding, 2011; El‐Sheikh and Pryke, 2010). To that end we adapt the perspective of Granovetter (1992, p. 10), who argues for a social construction of economic institutions, which is strongly influenced by the network structure and the relationship of the members of the network, where “the actor whose network reaches into the largest number of institutional realms will have an enormous advantage”. The above indicates that OEs can be larger than just the sum of mechanisms and factors (or process facilitators and discursive abilities) as they comprise them both plus possible synergies that arise from particular combinations of them and their interactions. Fig. 1 summarizes Propositions 1 to 3 by illustrating how each proposition advances the picture of OEs' underpinning elements. Process facilitators and discursive abilities with their respective mechanisms and factors coexist and interplay in organizations to generate a productive enabler. Mechanisms, factors and enablers are distinct still interdependent. Resulting in that, depending on intentions, goals and points of view, a construct can represent an enabler in one situation and a mechanism in another. For instance the construct of absorptive capacity may represent an internal organizational enabler to internalize information to circulate in its external environment but also represent a mechanism by which an organization governs relationships with its networks partners (Shipilov, 2009). From the above we define OE as the coexistence and interplay of structural and mental elements which jointly carry forward a phenomenon within a social structure. Common for factors, mechanisms, process facilitators and discursive abilities is that they all aim to reach a desired outcome. What differentiates between the concepts are the means, powers and the levels they operate on.

3.3. Characteristics of enablers 3.3.1. Characteristics of factors Factors often relate to touchable characteristics, conditions and variables directly impacting the effectiveness, efficiency and viability of an organization, a project or similar. Factors may range from the presence of a particular skills set to the culture of an organization. Scholars researching upon factors, such as critical success factors (CFS), try to understand the key features that result in a successful outcome or the particular

Please cite this article as: R. Müller, et al., 2014. Organizational enablers for governance and governmentality of projects: A literature review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.007

6

R. Müller et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. Initial framework of elements associated with organizational enablers.

interplay of factors, such as the interaction between technological and economic factors (cf. Dosi, 1982). 3.3.2. Characteristics of mechanisms Mechanisms trigger or accumulate actions that increase the likelihood of a certain outcome. Examples of mechanisms are organizational structures, rules, communities, teams, databases, networks and meetings (Grandori, 2001; Prencipe and Tell, 2001). In order to reach desired outcome mechanisms may come in collections/portfolios to be able to be efficient (Prencipe and Tell, 2001). 3.3.3. Characteristics of process facilitators and discursive abilities Discursive abilities involve organizational actors' abilities to construct and articulate the world involving their expertise, legitimacy and opportunity. Thus it comprises the means for sensemaking in organizations, such as social interactions, organizational legacy, ideologies, and also the organizational actors' abilities to shape each others' interpretation of reality etc. Process facilitators relate to organizational routines, practices, structures, and policies whose combination allows for particular governance approaches. In summary, OEs include both discursive ability and process facilitating ingredients, each consisting of factors and mechanisms. Understanding what an organizational enabler is requires a holistic comprehension of the organization, various internal and external interplays and the desired outcome. Organizational enablers are a more complex concept than mechanisms and factors alone, as they are highly situated and embedded in the actors' identity as well as in the social (discursive), technological and institutional (process facilitating) context the actors are operating within (see Table 1). 3.4. Project governance, governance of projects, and governmentality This section structures project related governance literature into three main streams: project governance, governance of projects, and governmentality. We applied the categorization as shown in Table 1 to these categories of literature. This allowed identifying the OEs and their elements in each respective area.

The literature addresses project type specific project governance as well as project governance in general. Major differences in project governance approaches were shown between for-profit projects and open source development projects. The former's relative emphasis is on project governance, while the latter emphasizes governmentality, as shown across Tables 2 and 4. 3.4.1. Organizational enablers for project governance The categorization of the literature on project governance is shown in Table 2. The body of the table shows the key relevant findings of the referenced studies. Thus it summarizes the input to the analysis process. The results are described in the following sections. The majority of published material in this area comes in a form of guidelines and handbooks, such as the work by the Association of Project Management (APM) (APM, 2004), or the work by the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) (OGC, 2009). These are not peer-reviewed research-based publications and therefore not listed below. Analysis of the research-based literature in Table 2 indicates that project governance is enabled in organizations through the presence of a governance infrastructure (i.e. established by governance of projects), which provides the governance structures and frameworks that suit the particular requirements of a project and its organizational context. This infrastructure comes to bear through structures that provide authority for its execution. Thus our proposition for project governance: Proposition 4. Organizational enablers for project governance are the authority to procure, implement and execute

Table 1 Examples of mechanisms and factors and how they relate to the core components of enablers.

Factors

Mechanisms

Process facilitator

Discursive ability

Degree of customer involvement, formalization of procedures (Ahadi, 2004) Informal organizational routines, meetings, job rotation, meeting minutes, process maps etc. (Prencipe and Tell, 2001)

Top management support and organizational culture (Ahadi, 2004) Rules, regulations, price, and competence/knowledge worker integrators (Grandori, 2001)

Please cite this article as: R. Müller, et al., 2014. Organizational enablers for governance and governmentality of projects: A literature review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.007

R. Müller et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx

7

Table 2 Core components of organizational enablers for project governance. Process facilitators Factors

Mechanisms

Discursive abilities

• Presence of governance structures, including policies and institutions and the authority to execute them (Miller and Hobbs, 2005) • Presence of a governance frameworks, consisting of: development process (the story), governance principles (values), structure of the framework (contents), governance elements (adaptable to project) (Klakegg and Haavaldsen, 2011; Klakegg et al., 2009) • Decoupling of projects from operations (Turner and Keegan, 1999) • Flexible governance structures, that can be adapted to projects and their environment (Miller and Hobbs, 2005; Turner and Keegan, 1999) • Flexible governance frameworks which allow for top-down and bottom-up approaches (Klakegg and Haavaldsen, 2011; Klakegg et al., 2009) • Organization structures aligned with size of projects and size of clients (Turner and Keegan, 2001) • In non-profit projects: Governance through management of the six dimensions of system, mission, integrity, stakeholders, audits, and risks (Renz, 2007) • In open source software development projects: Governance configurations based on ownership of assets, community management, software development process, conflict resolution and rule changing, use of information and tools (Markus, 2007) • Turbulence arises in the project process when one (or more) of the three dimensions of TCE changes — these are asset specificity, uncertainty, and frequency of the transaction (Winch, 2001)

governance frameworks and policies, and the presence of specialized project governance roles (which can be executed by institutions for project governance, such as sponsors, steering groups, or PMOs). Process facilitators for this OE comprise of factors such as the presence of defined governance structures tailored for the organization and their particular projects and the presence of governance frameworks applicable for a given project. Supporting mechanisms are flexibility in the governance structures and frameworks, which should allow for tailoring or adaptation to the specific needs of individual projects (references in Table 2). Thus: Proposition 4a. Process facilitators for project governance are the presence of a governance infrastructure, such as governance roles in the organization and governance frameworks, together with the authority to implement them. These factors are supported by enabling mechanisms, such as built-in flexibility in governance structures and frameworks, as well as idiosyncratic organization structures that align business requirements (e.g. those stemming from the number and size of clients) with project needs (e.g. project size) in an organization. Discursive abilities that support this OE include factors such as aligned objectives of project, project manager and sponsor, as well as their synchronization with the organization's strategy. This is supported through communication mechanisms, which allow for these alignments, plus the execution of further governance functions, such as goal setting, provision of resources and controlling of progress (references in Table 2). Thus: Proposition 4b. Discursive abilities needed for the enabling of project governance include factors such as aligned objectives across the organization from strategy to projects, supported

• Alignment of project sponsor and project man ager objectives (Turner and Müller, 2004) • Alignment of strategy and project objectives (Morris and Jamieson, 2005)

• Steering Committee and other governance meetings (Crawford et al., 2008) • Workshops and gathering of people for ideating and planning (Lehtonen and Martinsuo, 2008)

by communication mechanisms, such as steering committee meetings, milestone meetings, joint planning sessions etc. 3.4.2. Organizational enablers for governance of projects The result of the categorization of the literature on governance of projects is shown in Table 3. Analysis of the related papers shows that the common theme is the need for flexibility in governance structures across the organization, stemming from the uniqueness of projects and their focus on stakeholder interaction and idiosyncrasies of project outputs (references see Table 3). Thus our proposition on the OE for project governance: Proposition 5. Organizational enablers for governance of projects are flexibility in structures and interactions, which allow for effectiveness in project selection and efficiency in project execution Process facilitators for this OE comprise factors such as flexible organization structures, which allow adjustments to the needs of a diverse set of projects and their contexts, such as different clients and different industries. Other factors include the presence of governance frameworks which allow governing a variety of projects using shared values and synchronized routines, all supported by governance institutions and a middle management willing to coordinate projects and solve related issues. Supporting mechanisms are flexible organization-wide governance structures and frameworks, supported by governance institutions with flexible mandates, such as PMOs or Steering Committees with changing objectives; depending on the issues at hand (references see Table 3). Thus: Proposition 5a. Process facilitators for governance of projects are the versatility of the organization and their deployment of governance institutions. This is supported by enabling mechanisms, such as flexible organization structures, flexible mandates and roles, willingness to collaborate across organizational

Please cite this article as: R. Müller, et al., 2014. Organizational enablers for governance and governmentality of projects: A literature review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.007

8

R. Müller et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx

Table 3 Core components of organizational enablers for governance of projects.

Factors

Process facilitators

Discursive abilities

• • • •

• Awareness of organizational project management and its related governance institutions like PMOs, Steering Committees etc. Aubry et al., 2012), (Müller, 2009) • Established knowledge governance routines and goals (Pemsel and Müller, 2012) • Communicated and accessible policies for governance of projects (Aubry et al., 2012)

•

Mechanisms

• • • • • • • •

Versatile governance structures (Turner and Keegan, 1999) PMOs (Aubry et al., 2010) Presence of standards for project management (Aubry et al., 2012) Middle managers' involvement to contribute to program and portfolio management for the governance of projects (Blomquist and Müller, 2006) Presence of a governance frameworks, consisting of: development process (the story), governance principles (values), structure of the framework (contents), governance elements (adaptable to project) (Klakegg and Haavaldsen, 2011; Klakegg et al., 2009) Roles of governance institutions, e.g. project audits by PMOs etc. depending on level of projectification (Müller, 2009) Fostering adaptive capabilities for short-term success and absorptive capabilities for long-term success (Biedenbach and Müller, 2011) Hybrid structures (in terms of TCE) for project-based organizations (Foss et al., 2010) Flexible mandates and roles for PMOs (Aubry et al., 2010, 2011) Standardization of project management across the organization (Aubry et al., 2012) Middle managers' in their coordinating roles and efficiency and effectiveness improvement roles for program and portfolio management for the governance of projects (Blomquist and Müller, 2006) Flexible governance frameworks which allow for top-down and bottom-up approaches (Klakegg and Haavaldsen, 2011; Klakegg et al., 2009) Organizational structures adapted to number of projects and number of clients (Turner and Keegan, 2001)

boundaries, and standardized but flexible project management across the organization. The discursive abilities needed for this OE are supported by factors such as awareness of the concept of organizational project management, its practices, roles and institutions, as well as defined and communicated governance policies and goals. Mechanisms that support this are communication events that allow synchronization across projects, the dynamic creation of new roles for the benefit of projects, as well as the work of PMOs (references see Table 3). Thus: Proposition 5b. Discursive abilities needed for enabling governance of projects include factors such as awareness of organizational project management, presence and communication of governance policies and governance goals. This is supported by mechanisms, such as program and portfolio level meetings for synchronization of governance across projects, the flexible adjustment of mandates and roles of governance institutions and individuals to achieve the goals of the organization through projects. 3.4.3. Organizational enablers for governmentality The result of the categorization of the literature on governmentality is shown in Table 4. The literature indicates three dimensions of OEs for governmentality: • Mindfulness of the people. This addresses people's mindfulness of the wider organization in their decision making, such as having the corporation in mind when deciding on

• Events for knowledge exchange among and between project managers, PMOs and others (Aubry et al., 2012; Müller et al., 2013) • PMO networks along with the corporate hierarchy (Aubry et al., 2012) • Structures that allow for information scouting, ambassadorial activities, and boundary shaping activities (Lehtonen and Martinsuo, 2008

maximizing the results for the corporation versus a single project, or tailoring existing structures to better execute new undertakings • Self-responsibility of the people. This addresses the people's awareness of and willingness to take on responsibility for results and the associated tasks, projects and other efforts to the benefit of the organization. • Self-organization within limits. This addresses the people's empowerment and willingness to self-organize their work within and across projects. In PBOs this is supported by a general “underspecification” of existing organization structures, autonomy of the people and the projects, and decentralized work practices which allow for dynamic (re-)organization of teams, creation of new roles and network structures as knowledge containers in the organization (e.g. Bresnen et al., 2004; Lehtonen and Martinsuo, 2008; Lindkvist, 2004). We propose: Proposition 6. Organizational enablers for governmentality provide for the development of individuals that are mindful of the organization, self-responsible, and self-organizing to a degree that matches the goals of the corporation. Factors facilitating the process for governmentality in PBOs are shown in Table 4. These are organizational design factors, as well as provision of resources and autonomy, both granted by upper management. For these factors to come to bear as an OE, they need to be supported by mechanisms, such as flat organization structures, willingness to execute formal and

Please cite this article as: R. Müller, et al., 2014. Organizational enablers for governance and governmentality of projects: A literature review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.007

R. Müller et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx

9

Table 4 Core components of organizational enablers for governmentality. Process facilitators

Discursive abilities

Factors

• Decentralization and autonomy, distributed work practices (Bresnen et al., 2004) • Combination of governance and support tasks of Steering Groups (Crawford et al., 2008) • Presence of a governance structure (Müller et al., 2013) • Provision of financial and human resources, top management support (Lehtonen and Martinsuo, 2008)

Mechanisms

• Flat organization structure as context for projects as a prerequisite for people behaving mindful and self-organizing (Lindkvist, 2004) • Combination of formal and informal roles of Steering Groups (Crawford et al., 2008) • Mutual trust between governance system designer and project managers (Müller et al., 2013) • Self-organization achieved by “underspecification “of structure, a “mindful” system, emphasis on competence (Lindkvist, 2004) • Community managed open source projects: independence of sponsors, pluralism in approaches, representation of members in decision making, decentralized decision making, and autonomous participation of individuals (O'Mahony and Ferraro, 2007)

• Awareness about temporality of projects, emphasis on short-term performance (Bresnen et al., 2004) • Culture of open and fruitful discussions (Lehtonen and Martinsuo, 2008) • Strong ideological superstructure in open source development projects (Franck and Jungwirth, 2003) • Responsible individuals (Lindkvist, 2004) • Alignment of project governance and corporate governance through discourse on governance paradigm (Müller, 2009) • Reporting practices synchronized with other projects, other reporting mechanisms, and across the organization (Bresnen et al., 2004) • Networks of people as knowledge containers (Lindkvist, 2004) • Shared communicative events, such as in-house project management conferences, synchronized project management and governance training across hierarchical levels, shared servers with policies, methodologies and tools for project management and governance (Müller et al., 2013)

informal roles, and trust between the governance structure and the people involved (Table 4). Thus: Proposition 6a. Process facilitators for the enabling of governmentality are organizational design factors, such as autonomy, decentralization, and flatness of organization structures. These factors are supported by enabling mechanisms, such as individuals' flexibility in adapting formal and informal roles, trust between individuals and the governance structure and a general “underspecification” of structures The discursive abilities needed for this OE are supported by factors such as an overarching ideology in order to communicate the values underlying governmentality, a supportive communication culture, and people's awareness of the temporality of their undertakings and the associated performance measures. Mechanisms that support this are networking structures among people, synchronized reporting and communication structures, supported by knowledge exchange events (Table 4). Thus: Proposition 6b. Discursive abilities needed for the enabling of governmentality include factors such as a culture of open discussions, ideologies that are clearly communicated, and a general emphasis on the temporality of the undertakings and its success measures. This is supported by mechanisms, such as synchronized reporting and communication structures across the projects and organization and, creation and maintenance of knowledge network structures (instead or parallel to departmental structures). 4. Discussion and conclusions This paper aims for an understanding of OEs for governance in the realm of projects. In the absence of a clear definition of the term, we used a literature review to conceptualize OE as

consisting of process facilitators and discursive abilities, with each of them being made up of factors and mechanisms that support these factors in order for OEs to become effective. This answers research question RQ1. The literature review showed that OEs are distinct for project governance, governance of projects, and governmentality. Thus they differ by the perspectives of individual projects, organizationwide project management, and deployment of governance. It is further indicated that they differ by project type, sector, and degree of projectification (the latter in the sense of Midler (1995)). OEs for project governance are the presence of governance institutions, such as steering committees or PMOs and the authority granted to them by higher management to execute the governance function. OEs for governance of projects are the flexibility of structures and interactions to allow the integration of different governance approaches at a higher (organizational) level. And OEs for governmentality are the development of mindful individuals with the willingness and capability to take on authority and responsibility for the governance of the project related business in an organization. Despite these differences, there are also reoccurring themes across the three perspectives. The most prevalent one is flexibility. It is referred to in: • Project governance: as flexibility in the idiosyncrasy of governance approaches and authority to implement these • Governance of projects: as flexible organization structures and peoples flexibility in their willingness to understand the implications of acting in the sphere of temporary endeavors, such as with changing tasks, goals, timeframes etc. • Governmentality: as management's flexibility in deployment of governmentality, for example, from external control and enforced process compliance to self-controlled neo-liberal approaches to governmentality

Please cite this article as: R. Müller, et al., 2014. Organizational enablers for governance and governmentality of projects: A literature review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.007

10

R. Müller et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx

When perceiving the three levels above as a hierarchy, with governmentality being the overall governance culture in the organization, governance of projects the next lower level of governance of the project-based part of the organization, and project governance being the individual project level, then: • The higher the governance level, the more important is the people dimension and its organizational values and visions for governance (e.g. Propositions 6 and 6b) • The lower the governance level, the more important is the governance structure in form of guidelines, policies, and methods for executing governance (e.g. Proposition 4a). • Flexibility is a key characteristic of successful governance, but the nature of flexibility changes with the level of governance. The lower levels require flexibility in the choice of methods and processes, while the higher levels of governance require flexibility in people's mindset and attitude towards work (e.g. Propositions 4, 5, and 6). This is supported by some of the classic studies in organization and management, such as Ouchi's (1980) and Brown and Eisenhardt's (1997) work on organizational control, which shows related findings in the realm of permanent organizations. This answers research question RQ2. The results have several implications for practitioners, such as the need for vision and values provided by the top management and management's development of a culture that fosters flexibility and self-responsible resources. Project and program level should be supported by governance frameworks (including guidelines and policies) which allow adjusting governance to project and program needs. All the levels should be supported by related training and development programs and incentive systems (e.g. incentives for flexibility and self-responsible behavior). Theoretical implications include: • This first conceptualization and definition of OEs in the realm of projects and their governance provides a new model of OEs by integrating the findings from OE research in several disciplines (i.e. factors and mechanisms) with management and organization (process facilitators and discursive abilities). This “standing on the shoulders of giants” of the former and “particular relevance” of the latter should provide for a credible approach to gain new insights when applying it to the project management research • This first conceptualization of OEs for governance in the realm of projects, from an organization wide perspective indicates various forms of flexibility at different organizational levels (see above), as well as “middle–up–down” implementation in the sense of Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), where the governance of projects provides the ground for project governance (see Proposition 4), and further on needs upper management support to establish governance discipline through shared visions and values (see Proposition 6). Future research may therefore address questions like “Is governance a success factor in projects?”, “Is neo-liberal

governance indicated as the preferred way of governance in the realm of projects?” or “How do organizations synchronize their governance approaches with their governmentality approaches?”. The strength of the present study lies in the structured methods for literature review and the support of the findings through existing theories. Propositions 1 to 3 were preliminary validated during their application, that is, the proposed theoretical lens fitted well with the data from the literature and gave clear results. This is, of course, only a first application and further tests are needed for refinement. Limitations are in a) the theoretical nature of the study, which calls for more empirical work, b) the use of a yet untested model for identifying OEs and its possible impact on the results, and c) the limitations set by the literature search and its focus on project governance related literature, where neighborhood areas, such as governance of IT, may have provided further insights. This paper developed a set of propositions as a contribution to a theory on OEs. Furthermore it structured existing literature by OE factors, mechanism, process facilitators, and discursive abilities at three levels of governance, thereby contributing to a theory on OEs for governance in the realm of projects. Conflict of interest statement The authors declare that there is no potential conflict of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. References Ahadi, H.R., 2004. An examination of the role of organizational enablers in business process reengineering and the impact of information technology. Inf. Resour. Manag. J. 17 (4), 1–19. Anatatmula, V.S., Kanungo, S., 2010. Modelling enablers for successful KM implementation. J. Knowl. Manag. 15 (1), 100–113. Arikan, A.T., 2009. Interfirm knowledge exchanges and the knowledge creation capability of cluster. Acad. Manag. Rev. 34 (4), 658–676. Association of Project Management, 2004. Directing change: a guide to governance of project management. Association for Project Management, High Wycombe, UK. Aubry, M., Hobbs, B., Müller, R., 2010. Images of PMOs: results from a multiphase research program, In: Sandrino-Arndt, B., Thomas, R.L., Becker, L. (Eds.), Handbuch Project Management Office, 1st edition. Symposion Publishing, Düsseldorf, Germany, pp. 301–321. Aubry, M., Müller, R., Glückler, J., 2011. Exploring PMOs through community of practice theory. Proj. Manag. J. 42 (5), 42–56. Aubry, M., Sicotte, H., Drouin, N., Vidot-Delerue, H., Besner, C., 2012. Organisational project management as a function within the organisation. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 5 (2), 180–194. Bhatt, G., Emdad, A., Roberts, N., Grover, V., 2010. Building and leveraging information in dynamic environments: the role of IT infrastructure flexibility as enabler of organizational responsiveness and competitive advantage. Inf. Manage. 47 (7–8), 341–349. Biedenbach, T., Müller, R., 2011. Paradigms in project management research: examples from 15 years of IRNOP conferences. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 4 (1), 82–104. Blomquist, T., Müller, R., 2006. Middle managers in program and portfolio management: practice, roles and responsibilities. Project Management Institute, Newton Square, USA. Bresnen, M., Goussevskaia, A., Swan, J., 2004. Embedding new management knowledge in project-based organizations. Organ. Stud. 25 (9), 1535–1555.

Please cite this article as: R. Müller, et al., 2014. Organizational enablers for governance and governmentality of projects: A literature review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.007

R. Müller et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx Brown, S., Eisenhardt, K.M., 1997. The art of continuous change: linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Adm. Sci. Q. 42 (1), 1–34. Clark, S.M., Gioia, D.A., Ketchen, D.J., Thomas, J.B., 2010. Transitional identity as a facilitator of organizational identity change during a merger. Adm. Sci. Q. 55 (3), 397–438. Clegg, S.R., 1994. Weber and Foucault: social theory for the study of organizations. Organization 1 (1), 149–178. Clegg, S.R., Pitsis, T.S., Rura-Polley, T., Marosszeky, M., 2002. Governmentality matters: designing an alliance culture of inter-organizational collaboration for managing projects. Organ. Stud. 23 (3), 317–337. Colurico, M., 2009. TQM: a knowledge enabler? TQM J. 21 (3), 236–248. Crawford, L., Hobbs, B., Labuschagne, L., Remington, K., Chen, P., 2008. Governance and support in the sponsoring of projects and programs. Proj. Manag. J. 39, S43–S55 (Supplement). Dictionary, d. http://dictionary.reference.com/ (last accessed 2013-02-01). Ding, R., 2011. A Social network theory of stakeholders in China's project Governance. iBusiness 03 (02), 114–122. Dinsmore, P.C., Rocha, L., 2012. Enterprise project governance. AMACOM, New York, NY, USA. Donaldson, L., 2001. The contingency theory of organizations. SAGE Publications, Thousand oaks, CA, USA. Dosi, G., 1982. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories — a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Res. Policy 11 (3), 147–162. Drouin, N., Müller, R., Sankran, S., 2013. Is project management research beginning to sound like a broken record? How can we improve its rigor? Proceedings of IRNOP XI. BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway. El‐Sheikh, A., Pryke, S.D., 2010. Network gaps and project success. Constr. Manage. Econ. 28 (12), 1205–1217. Foss, N., Husted, K., Michailova, S., 2010. Governing knowledge sharing in organizations: levels of analysis, governance mechanisms, and research directions. J. Manag. Stud. 47 (3), 455–482. Foucault, M., 1991. Governmentality. In: Burchel, G., Gordon, C., Miller, P. (Eds.), The Foucault Effect. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA, pp. 87–104. Franck, E., Jungwirth, C., 2003. Reconciling rent-seekers and donators — the governance structure of open source. J. Manag. Gov. 7 (4), 401–421. Grandori, A., 2001. Neither hierarchy nor identity: knowledge–governance mechanisms and the theory of the firm. J. Manag. Gov. 5 (3), 381–399. Granovetter, M., 1992. Economic institutions as social constructions: a framework for analysis. Acta Sociol. 35, 3–11. Gulati, R., Sytch, M., Tatarynowicz, A., 2012. The rise and fall of small worlds: exploring the dynamics of social structure. Organ. Sci. 23 (2), 449–471. Harden, A., Thomas, J., 2010. Mixed methods and systematic reviews, In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of Social & Behavioral Research, 2nd ed. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 749–774 (USA). Harden, A., Garcia, J., Oliver, S., Rees, R., Shepherd, J., Brunton, G., Oakley, A., 2004. Applying systematic review methods to studies of people's views: an example from public health research. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 58 (9), 794–800. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech.2003.014829. Harvey, C., Kelly, A., Morris, H., Rowlinson, M., 2010. Academic Journal Quality Guide, 4th ed. The Association of Business Schools, London, UK. Hobday, M., 2000. The project-based organisation: an ideal form for managing complex products and systems. Res. Policy 29 (2000), 871–893. Joyce, W.F., McGee, V., 1997. Designing lateral organizations: an analysis of the benefits, costs, and enablers of nonhierarchical organizational forms. Decis. Sci. 28 (1), 1–25. Kamhawi, E.M., 2012. Knowledge management fishbone: a standard framework of organizational enablers. J. Knowl. Manag. 16 (5), 808–828. Kjorlie Lee, D., Ventres, S., 1981. The nurse: the enabler. Am. J. Nurs. 81 (3), 506–508. Klakegg, O.J., 2010. Governance of Major Public Investment Projects: In Pursuit of Relevance and Sustainability. Unpublished PhD thesis, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway. Klakegg, O.J., Haavaldsen, T., 2011. Governance of major public investment projects: in pursuit of relevance and sustainability. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 4 (1), 157–167.

11

Klakegg, O.J., Williams, T., Magnussen, O.M., 2009. Governance Frameworks for Public Project Development and Estimation. Project Management Institute, Inc., Newton Square, PA, USA. Lee, H., Choi, B., 2003. Knowledge management enablers, and organizational performance: an integrative view and empirical examination. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 20 (1), 179–228. Lehtonen, P., Martinsuo, M., 2008. Change program initiation: defining and managing the program–organization boundary. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26 (1), 21–29. Lindkvist, L., 2004. Governing project-based firms: promoting market-like processes within hierarchies. J. Manag. Gov. 8 (3–25), 3–25. Maitlis, S., Lawrence, T.B., 2007. Triggers and enablers of sensegiving in organizations. Acad. Manag. J. 50 (1), 57–84. Markus, M.L., 2007. The governance of free/open source software projects: monolithic, multidimensional, or configurational? J. Manag. Gov. 11 (2), 151–163. Mesquita, L.F., Brush, T.H., 2008. Untangling safeguard and production coordination effects in long term buyer supplier relationships. Acad. Manag. J. 51 (4), 785–807. Michailova, S., Foss, N., 2009. Knowledge governance: themes and questions. In: Foss, N., Michailova, S. (Eds.), Knowledge governance — processes and perspectives. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 1–24. Midler, C., 1995. “Projectification” of the firm: the Renault case. Scand. J. Manag. 11 (4), 363–375. Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., 1994. Qualitative data analysis. SAGE Publications, USA. Miller, R., Hobbs, B., 2005. Governance regimes for large projects. Proj. Manag. J. 36 (3), 42–51. Morris, P., Jamieson, A., 2005. Moving from corporate strategy to project strategy. Proj. Manag. J. 34 (4), 5–18. Müller, R., 2009. Project governance. Gower Publishing, Aldershot, UK. Müller, R., Andersen, E.S., Kvalnes, Ø., Shao, J., Sankaran, S., Turner, J.R., Walker, D.H.T., Gudergan, S., 2013. The interrelationship of governance, trust, and ethics in temporary organizations. Proj. Manag. J. 44 (4), 26–44. Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., 1995. The knowledge-creating company. Oxford University Press, USA. O'Mahony, S., Ferraro, F., 2007. The emergence of governance in an open source community. Acad. Manag. J. 50 (5), 1079–1106. Office of Government Commerce, 2009. Successful Delivery Pocketbook. London, UK. (Retrieved August 15, 2009, from http://www.ogc.gov.uk). Ouchi, W.G., 1979. A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Manag. Sci. 25 (9), 833–848. Ouchi, W.G., 1980. Markets, bureaucracies and clans. Adm. Sci. Q. 25, 129–141. Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G., Walshe, K., 2005. Realist review — a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 10 (Suppl. 1), 21–34. Pemsel, S., Müller, R., 2012. The governance of knowledge in project-based organizations. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 30 (8), 865–876. Peris-Ortiz, M., 2009. An analytical model for human resources management as an enabler of organizational renewal: a framework for corporate entrepreneurship. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 5 (4), 461–479. Petticrew, M., 2001. Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions. BMJ 322 (7278), 98–101 (Retrieved from http://www. pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1119390andtool=pmcentrez& rendertype=abstract). Prencipe, A., Tell, F., 2001. Inter-project learning: processes and outcomes of knowledge codification in project-based firms. Res. Policy 30 (9), 1373–1394. Project Management Institute, 2013a. A guide to the project management body of knowledge, 5th ed. Project Management Institute, Inc., Newtown Square, PA, USA. Project Management Institute, 2013b. Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3), 3rd ed. Project Management Institute, Inc., Newtown Square, PA, USA. Renz, P.S., 2007. Project governance: implementing corporate governance and business ethics in nonprofit organizations. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany. Robson, A., Prabhu, V.B., Mitchell, E., 2002. TQM enablers and business sustainability: an empirical study of the service sector in the North East of England. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manage. 19 (5), 610–632.

Please cite this article as: R. Müller, et al., 2014. Organizational enablers for governance and governmentality of projects: A literature review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.007

12

R. Müller et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx

Rousseau, D.M., 2012. Becoming an evidence-based project manager. PMI Research & Education Conference — Plenary session. Project Management Institute, Limerick, Ireland (USA). Seddon, P.B., Calvert, C., Yang, S., 2011. A multi-project model of key factors affecting organizational benefits from enterprise systems. MIS Q. 34 (2), 305–328. Seidel, S., Recker, J., Pimmer, C., vom Brocke, J., 2010. Enablers and barriers to organizational adoption of sustainable business practices. Proceedings of the sixteenth Americas conference on Information systems, pp. 1–10 (Lima, Peru, August 12–15, 2010). Shenhar, A., Dvir, D., Milosevic, D., Mulenburg, J., Patanakul, P., Reilly, R., Ryan, M., Sage, A., Sauser, B., Srivannabon, S., Stefanovic, J., Hamhain, H., 2005. Toward a NASA-specific project management framework. Eng. Manag. J. 17 (4), 8–16. Shipilov, A.V., 2009. Firm scope experience, historic multimarket contact with partners, centrality, and the relationship between structural holes and performance. Organ. Sci. 20 (1), 85–106. Sinha, K.K., Van de Ven, A.H., 2005. Designing work within and between organizations. Organ. Sci. 16 (4), 389–408. Srinivasan, J., Lundqvist, K., 2009. Organizational enablers for agile adoption: learning from gameDevCo. Conference proceedings — Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming — 10th International Conference. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 63–72. Stoker, G., 1998. Governance as theory: five propositions. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 50 (155), 17–28. Street, C.T., Meister, D.B., 2004. Small business growth and internal transparency: the role of information systems. MIS Q. 28 (3), 473–506. Sykes, T.A., Venkatesh, V., Gosain, S., 2009. Model of acceptance with peer support: a social network perspective to understand employees' system use. MIS Q. 33 (2), 371–393. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J. Manag. 14 (3), 207–222.

Turner, J.R., Keegan, A., 1999. The versatile project-based organization: governance and operational control. Eur. Manag. J. 17 (3), 296–309. Turner, J.R., Keegan, A., 2001. Mechanisms of governance in the project-based organization: roles of the broker and steward. Eur. Manag. J. 19 (3), 254–267. Turner, J.R., Müller, R., 2004. Communication and co-operation on projects between the project owner as principal and the project manager as agent. Eur. Manag. J. 22 (3), 327–336. Venkatesh, V., Speier, C., Morris, M.G., 2002. User acceptance enablers in individual decision making about technology: toward an integrated model. Decis. Sci. 33 (2), 297–316. Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., Nonaka, I., 2000. Enabling knowledge creation: how to unlock the mystery of tacit knowledge and release the power of innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Webster, F.E., Wind, Y., 1972. Organizational buying behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Williams, T., Klakegg, O.J., Magnussen, O.M., Glasspool, H., 2010. An investigation of governance frameworks for public projects in Norway and the UK. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28 (1), 40–50. Winch, G.M., 2001. Governing the project process: a conceptual framework. Constr. Manage. Econ. 19, 799–808. Wong, K.Y., 2005. Critical success factors for implementing knowledge management in small and medium enterprises. Ind. Manage. Data Syst. 105 (3), 261–279. Yang, C., Chen, L.-C., 2007. Can organizational knowledge capabilities affect knowledge sharing behavior? J. Inf. Sci. 33 (1), 95–109. Zheng, W., Yang, B., MacLean, G., 2010. Linking organizational culture, structure, strategy, and organizational effectiveness: Mediating role of knowledge management. J. Bus. Res. 3 (7), 763–771. Zott, C., Amit, R., 2007. Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Organ. Sci. 18 (2), 181–199.

Please cite this article as: R. Müller, et al., 2014. Organizational enablers for governance and governmentality of projects: A literature review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.007