The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Project governance and stakeholders: a literature review
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Despite the importance of stakeholders in project governance, project management literature lacks from an inclusive framework which defines the roles, relationships and positions of internal and external stakeholders inside and outside of the organization's governance structure. This paper has the purpose to report a review on project governance literature to draw attention to the context within which the stakeholders are positioned, to extract their roles and relationships inside and outside of the organization and to develop new avenues for research regarding stakeholders in project governance. The conducted thematic analysis reveals that there are three contexts influencing organization's approaches towards stakeholders: success, megaprojects and ethics. The developed conceptual framework illustrates that organizations are in direct contact with external stakeholders at the organizational level and project level. Strategic decisions made at the organizational level are operationalised at the portfolio level and influence the approach towards external stakeholders at the project level. Considering the lack of theories to support general doctrine of stakeholder theory, this research suggests that future governance researchers adopt a broader view in selection of theoretical lenses in order to include the social and psychological aspects of the management of external stakeholders.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4279003 · Cited by 13,338
The processes of causal attribution.
Kelley, H. H. (1973) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/h0034225 · Cited by 4,025 · cited 1×
“Examples of such theories could be attribution theory (Jones and Davis, 1965; Kelley, 1973), institutional theory (Dimaggio and Powell, 2000; Zucker, 1977) and so many other theories explored and applied by future researchers.”
BackgroundFrom acts to dispositions the attribution process in person perception
Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60107-0 · Cited by 3,424
Conducting a literature review
Rowley, J., & Slack, F. (2004) · Management Research News · doi:10.1108/01409170410784185 · Cited by 885
Analyzing the past to prepare for the future
(2002) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.5555/2017160.2017162 · Cited by 179
Cited by
Why is China struggling with waste classification? A stakeholder theory perspective
Guo, S., & Chen, L. (2022) · Resources, Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106312 · Cited by 55
Halder, A. (2024) · Innovative Infrastructure Solutions · doi:10.1007/s41062-024-01521-6 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Derakhshan, R., Turner, R., & Mancini, M.
- Venue
- International Journal of Project Management
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-01
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 98-116
- ISSN
- 0263-7863 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2901891253
- Cited by
- 300
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 16.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.