A (meta)governance framework for multi-level governance of inter-organizational project networks

Abstract

<p>Inter-organizational networks are frequently used to execute large and megaprojects. This study develops a theoretical framework for the governance of these networks. Twenty-eight case studies, each representing a network for a project, were assessed using 124 interviews in ten countries. A three-layer governance model is derived from the analysis. At the lowest layer (network governance) is the individual network of organizations collaborating in a project. This layer is explained through Multi-level Governance Theory. The intermediate layer (governance of networks) addresses the steering of the different networks these organizations are part of, such as for training, certification, safety etc.. At the top layer (metagovernance) are the ground-rules, set by governments or other investors to regulate how the two other layers are allowed to set up their governance. The study’s resulting theory combines three so far separate levels of governance into an overall understanding of large inter-organizational networks for projects. It provides parameters for practitioners to optimize their networks for better project results.</p>

A Multilevel Governance Model for Interorganizational Project Networks

“…At the same time governance of networks facilitates the link between metagovernance and the governance of the network of horizontal and non-hierarchical organizations, representing a moderating relationship (Müller et al, 2022). Hence, we propose that: H2.2: The impact on Type II governance is moderated by Governance of Networks By proposing H2.1 and H2.2, we hypothesize that governance of networks acts as a mediator and as a moderator at the same time.…”

“…Network governance recognizes the governance of the joint execution of projects through the network. Adopting multi-level governance as the theoretical lens, Müller et al (2022) found that the hierarchical structure typically found at the top of hybrid formations of inter-organizational project networks can be explained through Type I governance with clear roles and responsibilities, distinct accountabilities and based on traditional governance theories (Davis, Schoorman, & Donaldson, 1997;Williamson, 1985). Additionally, they found that the more democratic interactions at the lower end of the hierarchy can be explained through Type II governance and being more situation dependent.…”

“…Following Müller et al (2022), Type I questions asked for non-overlapping accountabilities, use of SPVs, formal management authority, and delivery through Type II organizations. Type II questions asked for overlapping accountabilities and informal governance.…”

“…The first mode is metaexchange , which refers to the reflexive design of markets and the subdivisions they include. In the project context this refers to market-level decisions investors make, for example, in regard to new power generation or smart city technologies (Braithwaite, 2020; Müller et al, 2022). The second one, metaorganization, is about the design of organizations, intermediate organizations, and ecologies of organizations such as the authorization of special purpose vehicles (Müller et al, 2022; Sainati et al 2017).…”

“…Building on this research question, the aim of the present article is to address this omission by testing and validating a framework model for multi-level governance of inter-organizational project networks recently developed by Müller et al (2022). This framework builds on political governance theory and identified three distinct but interrelated layers of governance, namely metagovernance, governance of networks, and network governance.…”