Applying Open Systems Theory to Post-Contract Public Project Governance in Malaysia

Public project governance is essential for ensuring accountability, transparency, and performance in the public sector. In Malaysia, persistent cost overruns, implementation delays, audit noncompliance, and recurring weaknesses documented in Auditor General reports reveal structural deficiencies in current governance arrangements. Despite regulatory reforms and procedural controls, governance failures continue, indicating fragmentation rather than systemic coherence.This study reconceptualizes post-contract public project governance as an open and adaptive system. Utilizing Open Systems Theory (OST), it develops a conceptual framework in which institutional inputs such human resource capacity, accountability structures, and contractual completeness are transformed through performance monitoring and change and risk management processes to yield project performance outcomes. Governance effectiveness is thus understood as the result of systemic alignment among institutional capacities, enforcement mechanisms, environmental pressures, and feedback loops. By extending OST to post-contract public project governance, this study advances an integrative theoretical perspective that transcends isolated variable analysis and provides strategic implications for strengthening governance reform in Malaysia and comparable institutional contexts.

Public project governance; Open Systems Theory; Post-contract management

1. Aben, T., van der Valk, W., Roehrich, J., & Selviaridis, K. (2021). Managing information asymmetry in public–private relationships undergoing digital transformation: The role of contractual and relational governance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-09-2020-0675 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Adeusi, K. B., Jejeniwa, T. O., & Jejeniwa, T. O. (2024). Advancing financial transparency and ethical governance: Innovative cost management and accountability in higher education and industry. International Journal of Management & Entrepreneurship Research. https://doi.org/10.51594/ijmer.v6i5.1099 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Ahmad, S., Bhatti, M. A. A., & Imam, M. A. (2023). Balancing control and collaboration: Project manager accountability in multi-layered governance systems. Journal of Professional Research in Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.58932/mula0018 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Ahmed, E., Al Mamar, S. H., & Al Ghassani, A. S. (2021). Risk management practices and financial performance: Evidence from the banking sector. Accounting and Financial Review, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.26905/afr.v4i2.6312 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Aigboduwa, J. E. (2025). Integrating transformational leadership and collaborative contracting for improved project delivery efficiency. International Journal of Project Management, 43(1), 102–118. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Akomea-Frimpong, I., Jin, X., & Osei-Kyei, R. (2021). Managing financial risks to improve financial success of public–private partnership projects: A theoretical framework. Journal of Facilities Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFM-03-2021-0036 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Alalyani, W. R., & Lee, C. K. (2024). Investigating factors affecting project performance moderated by project governance. Problems and Perspectives in Management. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.22(1).2024.23 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Alamsyah, K., Irwandi, Komar, M. A., Sujana, N., Ramadhani, P., & Mustajam, A. (2023). The urgency of developing quality human resources in realizing good governance: A literature review. Influence: International Journal of Science Review. https://doi.org/10.54783/influencejournal.v5i2.164 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Alkaraan, F., & Floyd, D. (2020). Rethinking the UK strategic public decision: Outsourcing, accountability and governance perspectives. Strategic Change, 29(6), 625–632. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Alolayan, R. M. (2020). Risk management governance in applications. Information and Knowledge Management, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.7176/IKM/10-2-07 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Avoyan, E., Kaufmann, M., Lagendijk, A., & Meijerink, S. (2024). Output performance of collaborative governance: Examining collaborative conditions for achieving performance in flood protection programs. Public Performance & Management Review, 47(2), 291–322. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Ayinkamiye, T., & Njenga, G. (2022). Effect of monitoring and evaluation human capacity on project performance. International Journal of Advanced Scientific Research and Management. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Bategeka, N., Iravo, P. M. A., Namusonge, P. G., & Mulyungi, P. (2021). Accountability structures and quality of service delivery in public institutions. Strategic Journal of Business & Change Management. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Biesenthal, C., & Wilden, R. (2014). Multi-level project governance: Trends and opportunities. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1291–1308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.06.005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2017). Transcending new public management: The transformation of public sector reforms. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/258191 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Flyvbjerg, B. (2021). How big things get done: The surprising factors that determine the fate of every project. Penguin Random House. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Joslin, R., & Müller, R. (2015). Relationships between a project management methodology and project success in different project governance contexts. International Journal of Project Management, 33(6), 1375–1392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.03.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). Wiley. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Ketokivi, M., & Mahoney, J. T. (2020). Transaction cost economics as a theory of the firm, management, and governance. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(3), 428–442. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2017.0008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Klakegg, O. J., Williams, T., Magnussen, O. M., & Glasspool, H. (2010). Governance frameworks for public project development. International Journal of Project Management, 28(7), 722–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.11.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. (2016). Governance networks in the public sector. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Melton, E. K., & Meier, K. J. (2017). For the want of a nail: The interaction of managerial capacity and human resource management on organizational performance. Public Administration Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12611 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Müller, R., & Lecoeuvre, L. (2014). Operationalizing governance categories of projects. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1346–1357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. National Audit Department Malaysia. (2023). Auditor General’s report on the federal government financial statements and management of federal government activities (Series 1). National Audit Department Malaysia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. OECD. (2020). Government at a glance 2020. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/1c258f55-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Rokkan, A. I., & Haugland, S. A. (2022). Governance mechanisms and performance outcomes in interorganizational relationships. Industrial Marketing Management. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2016). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open systems perspectives (2nd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Siddiquee, N. A. (2010). Managing for results: Lessons from public management reform in Malaysia. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23(1), 38–53. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513551011012308 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Too, E. G., & Weaver, P. (2014). The management of project management. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1382–1394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.07.006 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Ahola, T., Ruuska, I., Artto, K., & Kujala, J. (2014). What is project governance and what are its origins? International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1321–1332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.09.005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Torfing, J., Peters, B. G., Pierre, J., & Sørensen, E. (2020). Interactive governance: Advancing the paradigm. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting. Free Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. World Bank. (2020). Malaysia economic monitor: Surviving the storm. World Bank. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Young, R., & Poon, S. (2013). Top management support—almost always necessary and sometimes sufficient. International Journal of Project Management, 31(7), 943–957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.11.013 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Indirect Effect of Liquidity and Activity on Company Value with Profitability as an Intervening Variable
• Effect of Financial Skills, Knowledge, and Attitude on The Financial Behaviour of Clergy
• A Decade of Review: Trends in Budget Execution and Financial Performance of Development Projects in Tanzania (2014/15-2023/24)
• The Influence of Pre-Project Planning on the Budget Absorption Rate of Public Funded Infrastructure Projects in Kenya a Comparative Case Study of Narok, Migori, and Kisii County Government Projects
• Assessment of Factors Influencing Digital Transformation in Hotels’ Facility Management in Abuja Metropolis, Nigeria