IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eurman/v19y2001i3p254-267.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mechanisms of governance in the project-based organization:: Roles of the broker and steward

Author

Listed:
  • Turner, J. Rodney
  • Keegan, Anne

Abstract

The last 50 years has seen a shift in the nature of work, from mass production, with stable customer requirements and slowly changing technology, to the current situation where every product or service may be supplied against a bespoke design, and technology changes continuously and rapidly. This modern environment is a more project-based economy. The management of the former situation was well understood, based on classical management theory, developed over the previous 100 years. Classical management offers the traditional organization many strengths derived from the functional hierarchy at its core. These include strong central planning, governance and control, knowledge management and human resource development. The project-based organization requires a new approach to its management, which addresses the unique, novel and transient nature of its work, but retains the strengths of classical management. This paper is one of a series aimed at deriving such a management paradigm for the project-based organization. In this paper, we describe governance structures adopted by successful project-based organizations, and how they use them to manage the interface between projects and their clients. We describe two roles observed at this interface, labelled the broker and steward. We provide a Transaction Cost perspective of the governance mechanisms observed and the two roles. We note that the same governance mechanisms are adopted whether the project is managed in the market or the hierarchy. This is in stark contrast to the classically managed organization, and suggests different pressures act on the project-based organization requiring hybrid governance structures to be adopted for all projects. We outline the roles of the broker and steward in the different project governance structures we have identified. We consider why it is necessary to have two roles, a broker and a steward, and not one person fulfilling both.

Suggested Citation

  • Turner, J. Rodney & Keegan, Anne, 2001. "Mechanisms of governance in the project-based organization:: Roles of the broker and steward," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 254-267, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eurman:v:19:y:2001:i:3:p:254-267
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263237301000226
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Boumali Badr-Eddine & Tamine Rachid, 2022. "The Governance Effect on the Performance of an Urban Project," Economics and Business, Sciendo, vol. 36(1), pages 34-54, January.
    2. Ambituuni, Ambisisi & Azizsafaei, Farzaneh & Keegan, Anne, 2021. "HRM operational models and practices to enable strategic agility in PBOs: Managing paradoxical tensions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 170-182.
    3. da Silva Gonçalves Zangiski, Marlene Aparecida & Pinheiro de Lima, Edson & Gouvea da Costa, Sergio E., 2013. "Organizational competence building and development: Contributions to operations management," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(1), pages 76-89.
    4. Guan Jiancheng & Wang Junxia, 2004. "Evaluation and interpretation of knowledge production efficiency," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 59(1), pages 131-155, January.
    5. Lise Arena & Eamonn Molloy, 2010. "The Governance Paradox in Megaprojects," Post-Print halshs-00721622, HAL.
    6. David Obstfeld, 2012. "Creative Projects: A Less Routine Approach Toward Getting New Things Done," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(6), pages 1571-1592, December.
    7. Marek Kasperek & Monika Odlanicka-Poczobutt, 2021. "The Etiology of Formation and Reacting Way to a Change in the Supply Chain," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(2), pages 915-947.
    8. Eugenia Cacciatori, 2004. "Organisational Memory and Innovation Across Projects: Integrated Service Provision in Engineering Design Firms," SPRU Working Paper Series 117, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    9. Maria Kapsali, 2013. "Equifinality in Project Management Exploring Causal Complexity in Projects," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 2-14, January.
    10. Víctor Hermano & Natalia Martín-Cruz, 2020. "The Project-Based Firm: A Theoretical Framework for Building Dynamic Capabilities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-14, August.
    11. Cezar-Petre SIMION & Stefan Catalin POPA, 2017. "Evolution Of Research In Project Management. An Analysis Of The Research Results Published In The Period 1999-2017," Proceedings of the INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 11(1), pages 956-964, November.
    12. Birgit Leick & Susanne Gretzinger, 2018. "Brokerage and governance for business networks: a metasynthesis-based discussion," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 22(4), pages 773-804, December.
    13. Ping Yung, 2015. "A new institutional economic theory of project management," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(1), pages 228-243, February.
    14. Per Magnus Mæhle & Ingrid Kristine Small Hanto & Victoria Charlotte Simensen & Sigbjørn Smeland, 2021. "Mind the Differences: How Diagnoses and Hospital Characteristics Influence Coordination in Cancer Patient Pathways," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-25, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eurman:v:19:y:2001:i:3:p:254-267. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/115/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.