To determine if there is confusion in governance terminology amongst experienced management and project management practitioners.,Practitioner interviews and subsequent analysis.,Significant differences in governance terminology were found. The participants had nevertheless arrived at similar operating arrangements for their committees, even though they came from different segments of different industries and did not agree on the definition of governance. It was possible to develop a list of working parameters for operation of these committees from their responses. The labelling of committees associated with governance as steering or decision-making was found to be problematic and various causes/motivations for the differing definitions of governance having arisen were detected. These ranged from altruism, through dogmatic belief in particular frameworks, to enhancing career prospects/ego.,The sample came from organisations and industries in one state in one country. The need for review of governance terminology used in various project management practitioner reference documents and methodologies was identified.,Projects and business alike can potentially achieve improvements in efficiency and effectiveness through consistency of terminology and the clarity this brings to governance arrangements and committee operations.,Creation of a unifying feature within the project and management literature, shifting the understanding of governance and its boundaries and limitations. This will help progress governance from complexity to simplicity, from an art to an understandable practice, from a concept that has been hijacked for partisan and political gain to a lean social tool which can be put to use for the benefit of organisations, whether public, charitable or private.,The value is clarity – resulting in the avoidance of confusion and misunderstanding together with their consequent waste of time, resources and money.

中文翻译：

---

项目管理从业人员认为治理是什么？澳大利亚昆士兰州的感知研究

为了确定经验丰富的管理人员和项目管理从业人员在治理术语上是否存在混淆。从业人员访谈和后续分析。发现治理术语存在显着差异。但是，尽管参与者来自不同行业的不同部门，并​​且他们不同意治理的定义，但参与者仍为其委员会达成了类似的运营安排。从这些委员会的回应中可以为这些委员会的运作制定一份工作参数清单。发现与治理相关的委员会被标记为指导或决策存在问题，并且发现了引起治理不同定义的各种原因/动机。这些包括利他主义，通过对特定框架的教条信念，以提高职业前景/自我。该样本来自一国一州的组织和行业。确定了对各种项目管理从业人员参考文件和方法中使用的治理术语进行审查的需要。项目和业务都可以通过术语的一致性以及治理安排和委员会运作的清晰性来潜在地提高效率和有效性。在项目和管理文献中创建统一的功能，从而改变了对治理及其边界和局限性的理解。这将有助于从复杂到简单，从艺术到可以理解的实践的治理发展，