1.  How do research literature and standards define PPP governance? What are the definitions being used for PPP governance? What are the common components among these definitions?

Governance research in the allied disciplines draws from rich streams of governance research going back 50 years and appears to use definitions that contain elements of oversight and direction usually at the top levels of organizations. While there are several definitions in use, each is associated with a particular research stream, and researchers clearly delineate how what they are studying ties in with these streams. Recent work is beginning to extend governance as a need throughout organizations instead of just at the top.

Governance research in project-related journals tends to use a wide assortment of definitions and trends and often conflates governance with management. There is confusion between governance of a single project, governance over a project, governance of project management, and governance of complex networks of organizations.

PMI standards (as of 2014) provide several definitions in relation to different levels of project management operating in organizations. Given the recognized need to tailor governance to the organization it is being designed for, and thinking about projects, portfolios, and programs being managed at different levels of an organization, this approach may be justified. However, PMI standards continue the research trend of conflating management and governance activities.

Other PPP standards bodies tend to use a corporate or high-level definition of governance as relating to the activities of senior executives and boards in developing direction and control systems. Most often, it is defined as those areas of corporate governance that are directly related to project activities.

2.  What is the current state of research that has been conducted on PPP governance?

There is little to no empirical evidence apparent of PPP-specific governance outside of project-related journals except in IT journals. There is almost no empirical evidence of the effectiveness of PPP governance other than sponsorship and steering committees.

There is a long-standing and growing body of empirical evidence that effective project sponsorship impacts both project management and project business success.

There is a growing body of empirical literature exploring the role of the steering committee. Results are ambiguous.

There is conflation of governance and management.

Everyone in the project literature seems to assume they understand the term “governance” and either do not define what they mean by it or use their own definition rather than building on others, and specifically not building on the general management literature.

There seems to be growing focus on governance and efforts to produce evidence as indicated by publications in 2014.

3.  What does research reveal about the structural relationships between corporate governance and portfolio, program, and project governance?

There is very little empirical work.

In most research, the structural relations are suggested to work as follows:

• Corporate-level governance focuses on oversight and direction through the mechanism of portfolio management and the creation of OPM frameworks.
• Sponsors, steering committees, and portfolio management bodies (of projects and programs) provide the linkage between project management and strategic management and corporate governance.
• Project and program management are at the management level.

Some empirical studies address the need for alignment between levels and the transfer of control modes between levels in the organization. IT studies present some empirical evidence in the IT governance context. By far, the most research into governance structures and project sponsors can be found in the IT literature.

A recent study by Müller et al. (2014)^A begins to provide foundations for this work.

In the world of engineering and construction projects, governance issues are resolved through the nexus of contracts that form the rules by which the project is governed. There is a growing body of literature looking at the role of relational and formal contracting in governing these projects.

4.  What does research reveal about the relationships among the project sponsor, the project steering committee, and portfolio, program, and project governance? How do these roles and structures interact? What challenges (if any) are associated with these structures working together? According to research, what are the optimal characteristics of effective governance that facilitate successful delivery of projects and programs?

There is solid evidence of the importance of the sponsor role, both as a support role in project management supporting the project manager in delivering the project as per the plan, and as a governance role monitoring and controlling the delivery of business benefits through project delivery.

There is ambiguous evidence on steering committees; there is some empirical evidence supporting their benefit but confusion over whether the benefits come from a steering (decision-making) or advisory (stakeholder) committee. There is concern that the steering committee reduces the authority and decision-making power of the sponsor.

There is little discussion of the relationships among the sponsor, steering committee, and portfolio, program, or project management except in rich case study examples that highlight how different these relations are across organizations.

There is some discussion in both practical and PPP conceptual literature of how these relationships should work, but little in the way of empirical evidence.

Müller et al. (2014) provide some foundation evidence that the Müller (2009)^B depiction of four models of project governance appears to be common in practice. Future research needs to test the contingency factors that influence the choice of these models and whether any of them support more effective project delivery.

There is a growing amount of research on the tradeoffs, costs, and challenges of implementing governance.

5.  What research on effective governance is not reflected in PMI's foundational standards?

There is a difference between governance and management. Governance provides oversight and direction for management (making sure the right thing is done). Management is the implementation, monitoring, control, and direction for productive activities (making sure the work is done right).

Effective governance involves the least amount of structure as possible because there are costs associated with governance structure and monitoring mechanisms and they often result in unintended consequences.

People respond to the type of governance imposed. Rigid, formal governance structures drive out initiative, innovation, and trust.

Müller's (2009) model crossing shareholder versus stakeholder orientation with outcome versus behavioral controls seems to be proving out in empirical research and is a model to watch for contextual factors that influence effective governance.

6.  What PPP governance practices or mechanisms, evidenced by research, should be included in the four PMI foundational standards?

PMI standards should include more information on the available mechanisms for implementing governance at various levels of project management activity within organizations.

Specifically, five types of governance mechanisms should be discussed in the appropriate PMI standards:

• Impersonal governance,
• Personal governance,
• Vertical authority,
• Informal, horizontal, or lateral relations, and
• Formal governance.

There is also a wider array of organizational governance structures that could be considered over and above the sponsor and steering committee that might prove useful. Standards need to provide much more information and guidance on how to select among the governance mechanisms because “good” governance is context dependent.

PMI standards need to differentiate clearly between project management activities and governance activities.