Figure 1
Cascading governance exploration (source: authors).
Table 1
Overview of the interview partners.
| FOCUS | POSITION | DATE |
|---|---|---|
| Cantonal digitalization lab | Program manager responsible for digitalization in the canton | 04/07/2024 |
| Project A | Project sponsor | 06/12/2024 |
| Quality risk manager | 19/12/2024 | |
| Project leader | 29/11/2024 | |
| Supplier-side project leader | 04/12/2024 | |
| Sub-project leader | 04/12/2024 | |
| User representative | 27/11/2024 | |
| User representative/Member of the sub-project | 09/01/2025 | |
| Project B | Project sponsor and Member of the project steering committee | 16/12/2024 |
| Member of the project steering committee | 16/11/2024 | |
| Member of the project steering committee | 25/11/2024 | |
| Project leader | 19/12/2024 | |
| Project team member | 13/12/2024 | |
| Lawyer | 13/12/2024 | |
| User representative | 02/12/2024 |
Table 2
Codes development.
| CATEGORY | CODE | LITERATURE SOURCES |
|---|---|---|
| Governance structures | Structure of the project | Sjöblom, 2009; Clegg and Biygautane, 2025; Rentrop, 2024 |
| Changes in structure | ||
| Legal foundations* | Emerged inductively from the data | |
| Role description | Denford et al., 2015; Rentrop, 2024; Weill and Ross, 2004 | |
| Time of joining the project | ||
| Full-time position | ||
| Temporary position | ||
| Involvement in other projects | ||
| Task definition | ||
| Unclear tasks in role* | Emerged inductively from the data | |
| Dissatisfaction with role | Denford et al., 2015; Rentrop, 2024; Weill and Ross, 2004 | |
| Resource feasibility | ||
| Project leadership | ||
| Governance processes | Governance processes | Möltgen-Sicking and Winter, 2019; van Grembergen et al., 2007; Rentrop, 2024; Schwertsik et al., 2010 |
| Participative processes* | Emerged inductively from the data | |
| Processes for determining framework conditions | Lundin and Söderholm, 1995; van Grembergen et al., 2007; Rentrop, 2024; Schwertsik et al., 2010 | |
| Flexibility in processes | ||
| Impact of leadership* | Emerged inductively from the data | |
| Relational mechanisms | Challenges in coordinating stakeholders | Denford et al., 2015; Rentrop, 2024; Weill and Ross, 2004; Tonelli et al., 2017 |
| Communication* | Emerged inductively from the data | |
| Contact with stakeholders | Denford et al., 2015; Rentrop, 2024; Weill and Ross, 2004; Tonelli et al., 2017 | |
| Collaboration in the project | ||
| Collaboration across departmental boundaries | ||
| Collaboration with external parties | ||
| Project outcomes | Meeting project budget | Conboy, 2010; Flyvbjerg et al., 2022 |
| Meeting project timeline | ||
| Achieving project goals |
[i] The asterisk (*) indicates codes that emerged inductively from the data.
Table 3
Comparison of two projects.
| COMPARISON CRITERIA | PROJECT A | PROJECT B |
|---|---|---|
| Governance structures | ||
| Governance mode | Internal hierarchies, contractual collaboration, and horizontal network | Internal hierarchies, contractual collaboration, and horizontal network |
| Project sponsor | Stable | Changed |
| Project leadership | From the respective department; Stable and positively evaluated by all stakeholders | Originally from digitalization lab – without any subject expertise, then – from respective department; Not-stable |
| Governance processes | ||
| Stakeholders’ flexibility | Required and provided | High, but limited by insufficient time and human resources |
| Project management | From waterfall changed to agile | Planned agile but implemented like waterfall |
| HERMES | Yes | Yes |
| Relational mechanisms | ||
| Communication | Significant efforts dedicated; New communication channels created | Insufficient communication |
| External solution provider | Yes, very positive experience | Yes, troubled experience |
| Project outcome | ||
| Budget | 7 million CHF budget has been met | 5 million CHF budget has been met so far |
| Timeline | 6-month delay from the planned 4 years | 12–18-month delay from the planned 3 years |
| Meeting project goals | Project goals have been met; The scope of the project remained unchanged | Project goals have not been fully met; the project’s mandate has remained the same, but the project was re-scoped |
| Overall outcome | Success | Troubled: stuck in the conceptualization phase |
| CONCEPT | QUESTIONS |
|---|---|
| Governance structures | Can you briefly describe your role in the project? Have you been involved from the very beginning? Is this a full-time position? Is your position temporary for the duration of the project? Are you leading or working on other projects at the same time? If yes, how much of your work time do you dedicate to this project? Are the tasks you perform in this role clearly defined and feasible with the resources available? How is the project organized? Can you describe the general organizational structure? Does the project organizational structure go beyond departmental boundaries? How does the collaboration work? Do you have a project team? What roles exist in the project team, and who is part of it? Has the organizational structure changed significantly during the project? Does your IT organization have capable IT leaders and IT committees with clear decision-making authority? Can you describe the organization? Are the employees of the IT organization familiar with these structures? In your view, are there aspects of the governance structure that work particularly well or could be improved? |
| Governance processes | Are there steering processes and instruments you must follow (such as HERMES, agile elements, or IT organization processes)? If so, which ones? Many stakeholders are involved in this project. What challenges arise in coordinating these stakeholders? How are decisions made in the project? How are they communicated? What is the core basis of project leadership? Mainly internal hierarchies, partnerships with external suppliers, or horizontal collaboration, i.e., a network? Which processes are established in the IT organization for decision-making and oversight, and are these continuously evaluated? |
| Relational mechanisms | How would you describe the relational mechanisms in the IT organization? (Relationship mechanisms include working relationships, communication, and the use of synergies) Are there stakeholders who are not entirely satisfied with the role distribution in the project team? How would you describe collaboration within the project? How are conflicts managed? Do you have to cooperate with external suppliers? What has been your experience with this? How intensive is your contact with the project’s stakeholders, and to what extent do you see yourself as responsible for actively maintaining these contacts? |
| Project outcomes | Have the project goals and timeline remained the same throughout? If not, what are the main reasons for the changes? Were you able to have input on the timeline and budget, or were these predetermined for you? How would you assess the flexibility of the framework conditions in the project? |