Multiple projects and programmes are initiated and implemented concurrently to improve the economy and service offering for a nation (Habibi, Barzinpour & Sadjadi 2018). Similarly, organisations rely on projects and programmes to implement their strategies (Naik & Kharat 2018; Nyandongo & Mshweshwe 2017; PMI 2017). It can be surmised that projects and programmes have become the lifeblood of nations and organisations (Habibi et al. 2018). Nations and organisations group their strategic projects and programmes in the project portfolios (Lima 2019). Project Management Institute (2017:6) defines a project portfolio as ‘a collection of projects, programmes, subsidiary portfolios, and operations managed as a group to achieve strategic objectives’. Based on the characteristics of project portfolios and the unending enormous investments attached to them, it can be inferred that they demand even more robust management processes than projects and programmes. It is this realism that prompted the conception of PfM (Nyandongo & Mshweshwe 2017).

The purpose of PfM is to facilitate the identification, grouping, selection and prioritisation of projects, programmes and other initiatives in consideration of the strategic objectives (Costantino, Di Gravio & Nonino 2015; Oostuizen et al. 2018; PMI 2017) coupled with organisational capabilities and resource availabilities (Office of Government Commerce [OGC] 2011; Naik & Kharat 2018). The expectation is for PfM to promote better decision-making in terms of continuous management of project portfolios such as component reprioritisation, postponement and withdrawals (Hadjinicolaou & Dumrak 2017). However, the continuosly volatile circumstances that organisations face on a regular basis make the management of project portfolios difficult (Costantino et al. 2015; Kock et al. 2020). Assigned parties within organisations are required to constantly review the project portfolio components and make suitable decisions that will safeguard the investments of their organisations (Nguyen et al. 2018).

The fundamental purpose of a project portfolio is to promote successful implementation of strategic objectives within organisations (Martinsuo & Geraldi 2020). Scholars agreed that project portfolio goals should promote value maximisation, project portfolio balancing, strategy alignment and the right number of projects. It can be deduced that success in the context of a project portfolio should be tested against the realisation of the aforementioned purpose and goals.

In line with the meaning of project portfolio success, the following six criteria for project portfolio success are identified (Jonas 2010; Voss & Kock 2013; Marnewick 2015; Kopmann et al. 2017):

As a result of the consistent findings over the years about the criteria signalling project portfolio success, the abovementioned six dimensions were adopted in this study as the criteria for quantifying project portfolio success.

According to PMI (2016), the focus of governance should be on:

The statement by the PMI coincides with the remark by Müller et al. (2015:879) that governance provides a framework for constructing ethical decisions and management action that ‘builds on transparency, accountability, and defined roles’.

There are various types of governance within organisations (Müller et al. 2017). This includes organisational governance (also known as corporate governance), information technology (IT) governance and organisational project management governance, which is further divided into project, programme and portfolio governance (Erasmus 2020). Corporate governance is a control and oversight mechanism that is implemented at the highest organisational level (Ibrahimov & Omarova 2020). Information technology governance is an important subset of corporate governance that entails the ‘leadership and organisational structures and processes that ensure that the organisation’s IT sustains and extends the organisation’s strategies and objectives’ (Von Solms & Von Solms 2008:11). The Association for Project Management (APM) described organisational project management governance as the subset of corporate governance that focuses on providing guidance and oversight for the projects, programmes and portfolios (APM 2012). The focus of governance at project level is to provide direction and oversight for activities relating to project management execution to ensure delivery of products, services or results (Ul Musawir, Abd-Karim & Mohd-Danuri 2020). Unlike project governance, programme governance provides guidance and oversight to programme management in order to enable organisations to realise their expected programme benefits (APM 2012). Owing to the focus of this study, only project portfolio governance is briefly examined.

Project portfolio governance (PPG) involves the collective governance of projects, programmes and other organisational work (Müller et al. 2014). Project Management Institute (2016:42) defines PPG as ‘the framework, functions, and processes that guide portfolio management activities in order to optimise investments and meet organisational strategic and operational goals’. Based on this definition, an understanding can be established that PfM activities should be performed within the confines of governance (Müller et al. 2017). The definition by PMI upholds the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 2017:3) description that governance ‘authorises, directs, empowers, provides oversights and limits the actions of management’. The purpose of governance in the project portfolio sphere is to ‘provide guidance and oversight of the portfolio management function with the intention of optimising the investments and meeting the organisational strategic and operational objectives’ (PMI 2016:41).

Project portfolio governance is implemented through the governing structures such as the portfolio governing body, portfolio manager and portfolio management office (Knapp 2018). These structures have clear roles, responsibilities and authorities (APM 2012). Once established, governance structures institutionalise portfolio governance guidelines, policies and procedures, processes, functions and portfolio governance frameworks (PMI 2016; ISO 2017). These governance mechanisms are critical to the implementation and sustainability of PPG (Knapp 2018). The common grounds about the key governance aspects that promote effective and efficient project portfolio implementation and management are as follows (APM 2012; ISO 2017; PMI 2016; Simard, Aubry & Laberge 2018; Young et al. 2020):

When accentuating the importance of project portfolio success, the International Project Management Association (IPMA 2015:44) wrote, ‘By achieving the portfolio benefits, the organisation fulfils strategic goals, tactical and operational objectives and ultimately organisational success’. While PfM involves the use of methodologies that enable the smooth running of the project portfolios, governance defines these methodologies, thus serving as an enabler for PfM (Müller et al. 2016a). Governance provides a disciplined practice for PfM, therefore improving the chances for project portfolio success (Zaman et al. 2020). The establishment and implementation of appropriate governance mechanisms provide the means to recognise and counteract PfM challenges, which increases the likelihood of project portfolio success (Zaman et al. 2020).

As project governance is proven to influence project success (Joslin & Müller 2016; Müller et al. 2017), and the average project success is associated with project portfolio success, a relationship between governance and project portfolio success may be assumed. This assumption is further supported by Ul Musawir et al. (2020:4) who state that regardless of the level of governance and scope, the fundamental purpose of governance, which is to ‘define the objectives of organisational projects, provide the means to achieve those objectives, and control progress’, remains the same. In light of the critical role of governance on decision-making about PfM and the relevant established relationships, the following hypothesis is established:

A structured questionnaire with closed-ended questions was developed from the literature review relating to governance, governmentality and project portfolio success. The questionnaire commenced with a screening question, followed by four sections, namely demographics (four items), PPG (six items), governmentality (five items) and project portfolio success (six items). The three constructs (governance, governmentality and project portfolio success) were measured through a five-point Likert scale from ‘strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5)’. The survey questionnaire was designed and hosted on Google Forms. The questionnaire was piloted with 10 respondents prior to the formal collection of data. The results of the pilot study were helpful in the refinement of the questionnaire. The pilot results were excluded from the analysis of this study.

The email and WhatsApp messages containing the hyperlink to the internet survey questionnaire were sent to the first identified respondents, including reputable project management organisations such as Project Management South Africa (PMSA) and PMI South Africa. In line with the snowball sampling technique, respondents were encouraged to recommend other respondents who might be of relevance to the study. The respondents are from the South African-based organisations. After eight weeks, the survey was closed and the data were downloaded from Google Forms.

A total of 109 online responses were received. Upon the use of Microsoft Excel analysis tools, it was established that one respondent did not consent to participate in the study. This record was removed from the results, leaving a total of 108 responses for analysis. The questionnaire introduced a screening question to ensure that the participants met the set criteria (Kabir 2016). This was critical, especially with an online survey. In the context of the qualifying criteria of the study, participants were asked to indicate their level of involvement in PfM or governance. A total of four participants who answered ‘not involved’ were excluded from the survey. The remaining 104 responses were sufficient, as the minimum sample size for this study was 100 valid and usable responses.

The methods applied by the researcher to analyse data are largely reliant to the type of data collected, research questions and hypotheses (Oostuizen et al. 2018). This study followed a quantitative approach and therefore applied the two most commonly used methods for analysing quantitative data, namely descriptive and inferential statistics (Coldwell & Herbst 2004; Kumar 2018). The quantitative validity was tested through the exploratory factor analysis while reliability was tested through Cronbach’s alpha (Pallant 2020). This study applied the statistical analysis package, SPSS 29.

An application for full ethical approval was made to the University of Johannesburg Department of Applied Information Research Ethics Committee and ethics consent was received on 16 February 2023. The ethics approval number is 2023AIS002.

A mean of 3.89 for governance framework measure (Table 1), indicates that organisations were lacking in terms of implementing their governance frameworks when compared to other governance measures which are all above the ‘agree’ score. Based on the shared sentiments of scholars relating to the value of a governance framework (APM 2012; ISO 2017; PMI 2016; Simard et al. 2018; Young et al. 2020), it is a concern that organisations are found wanting in this measure. All these scholars concur that the implementation of a governance framework is vital to provide direction, control and standardisation within organisations. The highest emerging mean of 4 in Table 1 indicates that governance is well established within organisations as the majority of responses show agreement with these governance measurement items. Be that as it may, a perplexing question is how these organisations find it feasible to implement other governance measures without having formally instituted PPG frameworks. What makes this incomprehensible is that the majority of these governance components should be defined within the governance framework.

Table 1 shows that on average all the items for governmentality scored below the ‘agree’ measure. The highest mean is 3.95. This rating relates to item C7.1, which measured whether PPG received strong support from the leadership of the organisation. The contributing factor for these low ratings for the governmentality construct may be attributed to the high mean ratings under ‘neither disagree nor agree’. Unlike with the governance construct, most respondents seemed to be uncertain about the status of governmentality within their respective organisations. Based on these results, organisations are still faced with challenges of promoting and enforcing governmentality principles. According to the literature (Müller et al. 2017; Turner 2020), although governance and governmentality are two concepts, these two concepts are intertwined.

As shown in Table 1, five out of six items’ measures relating to the project portfolio success variable reveal that organisations experienced challenges relating to PfM. This is in line with the literature review, which also highlighted this challenge (Costantino et al. 2015; Geng et al. 2018; Kock et al. 2020; Naik & Kharat 2018; Oostuizen et al. 2018). The responses relating to measurement that evaluates alignment between project portfolio and the organisational strategy and goals show that this alignment does exist, as this measure recorded a 4.2 mean rating. This is contradictory to the literature findings which point out that organisations are still battling with this aspect (Naik & Kharat 2018; Oostuizen et al. 2018; Wiersma 2017). This disparity may be attributed to the fact that this observation was last made in 2018 according to the literature review. If this is the case, it may mean a step in the right direction is being taken. However, according to the displeasing results relating to this critical variable, this variable requires considerable attention. Table 7 shows the aggregated descriptive responses for governance, governmentality and project portfolio success.

The analysis of the minimum and maximum columns of Table 7 shows that the whole scale was used. What is also evident in Table 7 is that governance is the only variable with the mean slightly above ‘agree’ (4.0160). The implication of this finding is that governance in the realm of project portfolio is now gaining momentum. Unlike with governance, both governmentality and project portfolio success ratings are slightly below ‘agree’. Looking at these ratings holistically with the frequency distribution scores for both variables, it can be appreciated that these ratings are not necessarily disagreeable. Firstly, the governmentality of projects is not such a renowned dimension and still needs to be theoretically positioned within organisations. Secondly, it would have been concerning if the results were closer to the ‘disagree’ measure, but this is not the case with any of these variables. Thirdly, it is important to acknowledge that although the means were below 4, the means were closer to 4 than to 3. Hence, the respondents may not be totally neutral but will have a greater tendency towards agreement.

In their individual capacity, both governance and governmentality have proven strong relationships to project portfolio success. As illustrated in Table 4, governance showed a strong positive correlation of r = 0.597 and a significant correlation of p < 0.001, whereas governmentality showed a strong positive correlation of r = 0.794 and a significant correlation of p < 0.001. These results are welcome as they proved the two hypotheses relating to the positive effect of each of these independent variables on project portfolio success. The results coincide with the findings of other studies performed at project level (Joslin & Müller 2016; Müller et al. 2017; Unger et al. 2014).

These results support those of Turner (2020), who discovered that good governance improves decision-making and thus better project performance. Müller et al. (2016a) and Turner (2020) provide insights into how governmentality influences the environment and thus decision-making and better performance.

In relation to their effects on project portfolio success, the multiple regression analysis results show that when combined, both governance and governmentality indicated a significant (p < 0.001) relationship to project portfolio success. Together they predicted 63.4% of the variation in project portfolio success. These results are also parallel with the findings by Müller et al. (2014, 2016b) and Turner (2020) that governance affects decision-making and Müller et al. (2016a) that governmentality affects environment and ultimately decision-making.

When put in a controlled environment, governance on its own is not statistically significant to project portfolio success (p = 0.297). Interpreted together with the correlation results, it means that although governance relates to project portfolio success, it is not a predictor of project portfolio success unless used with other variables such as governmentality. This finding was not expected as it is contradicting the results of Joslin and Müller (2016) and Müller et al. (2017), although their findings were at project level. However, this finding proves the importance of governmentality. According to Turner (2020:675), ‘culture influences decision making in organisations, and so governance will have an impact on decision making via culture. Culture influences behavioural norms, judgment norms, perception of risk, and risk choices’. These statements by Turner (2020) were found to be important and relevant to this study as, in essence, the perception of the organisation about governance determines the success of the governance mechanisms and ultimately the performance of the project portfolios. The frequency results of this study show that most organisations have governance mechanisms in place. However, numerous responses show uncertainty about the emphasis of governance and the level of project portfolio success. Therefore, on aggregate, the results for these constructs were below the ‘agree’ scale (see Table 7).

Unlike with governance, the regression results in Table 6 between governmentality and project portfolio success proved governmentality as the only variable that is statistically significant for project portfolio success (p < 0.001). This finding of governmentality being the sole predictor of project portfolio success in a controlled environment was inconsistent with the finding by Müller (2019), which was made at project level. According to Müller (2019:10), ‘neither governance nor governmentality alone are most decisive for performance, it is their interaction and particular combination that impacts project performance’. Even so, this finding endorses the reasoning by Müller et al. (2015) that governmentality is an enabler of governance. The results also coincide with the findings of the study by Dean (2010) that governmentality influences the structure of governance and its development. In 2017, Müller et al. conducted a similar study at project level and found that all the governmentality precepts were related to project portfolio success. The results of this study demonstrate the importance of governmentality for the success of project, project portfolio and the organisation at large. Project practitioners and organisations involved in the project portfolio practices should learn from these results and promote a culture that embraces and upholds good governance.

Firstly, the study was limited to the South African organisations. Secondly, the respondents are largely from the ‘financial intermediation, insurance, real estate and business services’ industry. Thirdly, this study tested the overall relationships between the variables instead of testing these relationships at detail level, such as governance mechanisms and governmentality principles. Finally, although the results of the study bear out that both governance and governmentality impact on project portfolio success, the degree of correlation between these variables needs further exploration.

The implication of the governance results for organisations is that governance is an enabler to all forms and levels of management, and therefore it is critical to the organisational success. The implication of the overall findings for organisations is that every governmentality improvement will benefit the project portfolio performance. Therefore, organisations that improve their governmentality will see an improvement in their project portfolio success. This implies that organisations should invest in practices that would result in an improvement of their governmentality posture if they were to succeed in the management of their project portfolio. This includes the following: (1) organisational leadership should show commitment and support for governance. (2) Leadership view and commitment regarding governance approach and precept should be clearly communicated and embedded in the organisational culture. (3) Decision-making relating to PfM should be aligned with the formalised governance framework. (4) Governance should be obligatory and monitored. (5) There should be commitment to and compliance with governance by all stakeholders.

In South Africa, a study that reflects a fair industry representation is recommended. Similar studies that expand the research to other countries or even globally may be beneficial. In addition, studies that expand the findings to lower levels may be useful. For governance, this may be a study that does not only test the overall impact; a detailed study could test the impact of each governance mechanism on project portfolio success. For governmentality, this may be a study that tests the relationship at principle level to see whether all the governmentality principles do in fact impact on project portfolio success. There is an opportunity to strengthen the findings by exploring the degree of correlation between these three variables, i.e. governance, governmentality and project portfolio success.