1. The article discusses the importance of project governance and how it can be enriched by drawing from the literature on projects as temporary organizations.
2. The authors propose a conceptual framework describing the key functions of project governance, highlighting its role in reducing conflicts among stakeholders, managing project risk, improving transparency, and facilitating the exchange of relevant information.
3. The article emphasizes that good governance is crucial for achieving project success and creating sustainable value for organizations and their stakeholders. However, project governance models tend to lag behind other developments in the project management literature.
The article titled "The Core Functions of Project Governance" discusses the importance of governance in project management and proposes a conceptual framework for understanding project governance. While the article provides some valuable insights, there are several areas where it lacks depth and fails to address potential biases.
One potential bias in the article is its focus on the positive aspects of project governance. The authors argue that good governance is essential for project success and the creation of sustainable value. However, they do not adequately explore potential risks or challenges associated with project governance. For example, they do not discuss how ineffective or misaligned governance structures can lead to project failures or conflicts among stakeholders. This one-sided reporting undermines the credibility of their claims and fails to provide a comprehensive analysis of project governance.
Additionally, the article lacks evidence to support its claims about the relationship between project performance and governance. While it mentions that performance problems can result from misaligned or underdeveloped governance mechanisms, it does not provide specific examples or empirical research to support this assertion. Without supporting evidence, these claims remain unsubstantiated and weaken the overall argument presented in the article.
Furthermore, the article does not adequately address counterarguments or alternative perspectives on project governance. It presents a framework linking governance theories with project governance but does not engage with any opposing viewpoints or critiques of these theories. This omission limits the depth of analysis and prevents readers from gaining a comprehensive understanding of different perspectives on project governance.
Another issue with the article is its promotional tone towards using projects and associated disciplines to increase organizational value. While it acknowledges that there has been significant growth in adopting project management tools and techniques, it does not critically examine whether this trend is always beneficial or appropriate for all organizations. By presenting projects as inherently valuable without considering potential drawbacks or limitations, the article promotes a biased view that may not reflect reality.
Overall, while the article provides some useful insights into project governance, it suffers from biases such as one-sided reporting, unsupported claims, and a lack of critical analysis. To improve the article's credibility and depth, the authors should address potential risks and challenges associated with project governance, provide evidence to support their claims, consider alternative perspectives, and present a more balanced view of the topic.