International development projects by non-governmental organizations: an evaluation of the need for specific project management and appraisal tools

Figures & data

Table 1 The distinction between hard and soft projects.

Hard projects	Parameter	Soft projects
Goals clearly defined	Goal clarity	Goals/objectives highly ambiguous defined
Physical artefact	Goal tangibility	Abstract concept
Only quantitative	Success measures	Only qualitative
Not subject to external influences	Project Permeability	Highly subject to external influences
Refinement of single solution	Number of solution options	Exploration of many alternative solutions
Expert practitioner, no stakeholder participation	Participation and practitioner role	Facilitative practitioner, high stakeholder involvement
Values technical performance and efficiency, manages by monitoring and control	Stakeholder expectations	Values relationships, culture and meaning, manages by negotiation and discussion

Source: Crawford and Pollack (2004).

Table 2 The characteristics of ID projects.

	Characteristic	Supporting literature	Evidence in ‘hard’ projects	Evidence in ‘soft’ projects
1	Lack of a defined and/or powerful customer	Ahsan and Gunawan, (2010), Ika (2012) Moe and Pathranarakul (2006)	In crowded areas, it can be difficult to determine the actual users of a certain structure	The target beneficiaries (the poor or minorities) may find it difficult to make their voices heard
2	High number of stakeholders	Youker (1999), Saad et al. (2002), Diallo and Thuillier (2005), Steinfort (2010), Zhai et al. (2009)	Presence of many stakeholders (including local workforce and suppliers), to be managed accordingly	Lower number of stakeholders, but higher possibility of conflicting interests
3	Difficult, complex and risky environment	Youker (1999), Diallo and Thuillier (2004), Khang and Moe (2008), Ika et al. (2012), Zhai et al. (2009)	Higher costs and risks due to natural disasters and inclement weather	Higher risks due to political and social instability
4	Resource scarcity	Youker (1999), Quartey (1996), Muriithi and Crawford (2003)	Budget constraints are one of the main causes of project elimination or downsizing	Lack of skilled resources or high turnover can pose issues for implementation
5	Difficulty in using project management techniques in the context of other cultures	Ahsan and Gunawan (2010), Muriithi and Crawford (2003), Crawford and Bryce (2003), Chan and Raymond (2003), Ika et al. (2012)	Stakeholders are different not only in terms of culture, but also on the level of instruction. Where corruption is problematic, tools that can foster transparency are not well accepted	Important to take into account different levels of instruction and religious orientations
6	Presence of intangible project outputs, which can be difficult to define and measure	Khang and Moe (2008), Steinfort (2010), Ahsan and Gunawan (2010), Ika et al. (2012)	The project has well-defined immediate objectives, but a connection with the long-term objectives can be difficult to define	Project results can be difficult to measure

Table 3 The types of stakeholders involved in an ID project.

	Description	Role/interest
Project manager	The manager in charge of the project	Manages the project, achieves objectives, meets stakeholders’ interests
NGO	The NGO implements the project	Manages the portfolio of projects, stakeholders, fundraising
Donors	Single or multiple companies, institutions, organizations or individuals providing the money to support the project	Provide relief and help to the beneficiaries, gain a positive reputation in their community.May be in charge of verifying that the goals have been fulfilled
Organizations implementing projects in the same area	Other organizations in the same area (e.g. NGOs and governmental agencies) can carry out other projects with possible common bottlenecks or other constraints	Prioritize their own projects
Multilateral agencies	International agencies that monitor the progress of the project	Supervision
Local government and institutions	The government and institutions in the area where the project is delivered	Supervise, prioritize projects, align project objectives with governmental objectives, provide help to the population, gain a positive public image, attract additional aid
Beneficiaries	The recipients of the project	Align project objectives with their needs, attract additional aid
Local population	The rest of the population; even if it does not directly benefit from the project, it can affect the project	Competes to receive aid, can create obstacles or facilitate the project, generates positive or negative public opinion
Local implementing partners	Local companies/NGOs (e.g. suppliers and contract workers) that participate in the project	Earn money, participate in several projects

Figure 1 An example of a stakeholder map highlighting mutual relationships. Dark boxes identify key stakeholders. Solid arrows represent regular communication between the parties involved and dotted arrows represent likely communication between parties. Adapted from Ahsan and Gunawan (2010).

Table 4 Comparison of life cycles.

PMBOK
PMDPro1
PM4DEV

Table 5 The processes included in the guidelines.

	PMBOK	PMDPro1	PM4DEV	IPMA^a
Project Scope Management	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes (1.10)
Project Time Management	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes (1.11)
Project Cost Management	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes (1.13)
Project Risk Management	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes (1.04)
Project Human Resource Management	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes (1.62)
Project Stakeholders Management	Yes^b	Yes	Yes	Yes (1.02)
Process Integration Management	Yes	–	–	Yes (1.01)
Project Quality Management	Yes	–	Yes	Yes (1.05)
Project Communication/Information Management	Yes	–	Yes	Yes (1.18)
Project Procurement/Supply chain/Contract/Management	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes (1.14)
Project Justification Management	–	Yes	–	–

a Included by the fourth edition of the guide into chapter 10 ‘Project communication management’; in the fifth edition is now extensively described in chapter 13 ‘Project stakeholder management’.

b Meaning that the competence (identified in brackets) to address that process is included in the guide.

Table 6 A comparison of the levels of description of the tools.

	PMBOK	PMDPro1	PM4DEV
Project charter	High	High	Medium
WBS	High	Medium	High
Critical path method/network diagram	High	High	High
Gantt diagram	Low	High	High
Earned value management system	High	Medium	High
Risk analysis	High	High	High
Logical framework	–	High	Medium
Stakeholders map and matrix	High	High	Medium
Problem tree, objective tree, alternative tree	–	High	–

Note: High, in-depth description; medium, presentation of the tool; –, no references to the tool.

Figure 2 The project monitoring and evaluation matrix. Source: PMDPro1.

Figure 3 Logical framework: PM4DEV.

Figure 4 Logical framework: PMDPro1.

Table 7 The relationship between characteristics and tools.

	Presence of a weak customer	Stakeholder management	Difficult environment	Resource scarcity	Difficulty in using project management techniques in the context of other cultures	Presence of intangible project outputs, difficult to define and measure
Project charter	Helps in adhering to the original goals and avoiding ‘scope creep’ during the evolution of a project	Useful for communicating and reaching agreement on project objectives and long-term goals			Useful for communicating and reaching agreement on project objectives and long-term goals	Useful for communicating and reaching agreement on project objectives and long-term goals
WBS		Simple tool, easily understood by the different stakeholders		Can help in identifying necessary activities.	Simple tool, easily understood by different people
Critical path method				Can help in making a project faster and more efficient
Gantt diagram		Simple tool, easily understood by different stakeholders			Simple tool, easily understood by different people
Earned value management system			Helps keep a project under control in terms of time and costs	Helps control and correct project performance
Risk analysis			Fundamental for analysing and managing risks	Facilitates risk anticipation and avoidance
Logical framework		Helps define a project's scope and objectives			Can be understood by different cultures	Helps identify sources of verification
Stakeholders analysis matrix		Manages multiple stakeholders			Particularly helpful when stakeholders have different cultures and approaches
Problem tree, objective tree, alternative tree	Provides a broader view of problems	Clarifies issues that are raised by a project and its position		Helps define the perimeters of a project		Helps identify and define a project's objectives

Table

PMDProPMDPro1 is a guideline developed by PM4NGOs, an organization devoted to training and disseminating project management knowledge among NGOs. This initiative was established in 2007 with the goal of promoting a standard of project management in the developing sector. Many organizations support PM4NGOs, in particular the Project Management Institute's Educational Foundation (PMIEF), which encourages the spread of project management knowledge with the objective of improving economic, educational and social conditions.PM4NGOs has published two guidelines called PMDPro and PMDPro1, and it offers a certification program divided into three levels.In our analysis, we considered only levels 1 and 2, as level 3 is still under development.PM4DEVPM4DEV is an organization involved not only in training activities but also in consultation. Based on the experience of project managers who have worked in international organizations for development, the main objective of PM4DEV is to serve the fundamental needs of the community involved in the developing projects, offering them the tools and processes required to plan, execute, monitor and control their projects in a consistent and reliable manner. In our analysis, we only considered the fundamentals of project management and mastering project management, because they are standard courses, while adaptive project management is tailored to a specific organization's needs.

Table

Component	Key questions	Guiding principles	Challenges
1. Plan for transition from earliest stages of ID and design	• What type of transition is envisioned?What is the timeline and what are benchmarks?	• Ongoing project review and revision• Transparency; especially funding	• Balancing firm commitments with flexibility• Allowing adequate time to develop capacity
2. Develop partnerships and local linkages	• Selecting the right partners?• What do partners bring?	• Diversity: may need other project inputs• Clear and common goals	• Aligning needs and objectives of diverse stakeholders• Supporting local partners without dependencies
3. Build local organizational and human capacity	• What capacities are needed?• What capacities exist?	• Build on existing capacity if possible• Create environments to support capacities	• Designing monitoring to track capacity building • Providing incentives and retaining experienced staff
4. Mobilize local and external resources	• What inputs are needed to maintain services?• Can benefits be sustained without ongoing inputs?	• Procure resources locally where possible• Increasingly bring external resources under local control	• Difficulty in finding adequate or available local resources• Other funders not ‘buying in’ to original objectives
5. Stagger phase out of various activities	• What are key project elements?• Which elements are dependent on others?	• Flexibility; staggering sequence may change upon implementation	• Sufficient time allowed in the project cycle to start seeing the intended impact and outcomes
6. Allow roles and relationships to evolve after transition	• What types of ongoing support (advice, mentoring, Technical Assistance, etc.)?• How will ongoing support be funded?	• Prevent slippage of project's intended results by including in extended, expanded or redesigned project	• Availability of funding for ongoing support• Availability of staff who can focus sufficient time and energy on ongoing support

Table

Stakeholder and basic characteristics	Interests and how they are affected by the problem	Capacity and motivation to bring about change	Possible actions to address stakeholder interests
Fishing families 20,000 families, low-income earners, small-scale family businesses, organized into informal cooperatives. Women actively involved in fish processing	Maintain and improve the means of livelihood. Pollution is affecting volume and quality of catch. Family health is suffering, particularly children's and mothers'	Keen interest in pollution-control measures limited political influence, given weak organizational structure	Support capacity to organize and lobby Implement pollution Identify and develop alternative income sources
Textile industry. Medium-scale industrial operation, poorly regulated and no unions. Well connected with ruling party. Poor environmental record	Maintain/increase profits. Some concern about public image. Concern about costs of environmental regulations enforced	Have financial and technical resources to employ new cleaner technologies. Limited current motivation to change	Raise their awareness of social and environmental impact. Mobilize political pressure to influence industry behaviour. Strengthen and enforce environmental laws

Source: PMDProl.

CrawfordL, PollackJ. 2004. Hard and soft projects: a framework for analysis. Int J Project Manage. 22:645–653.

 Google Scholar

AhsanK, GunawanI. 2010. Analysis of cost and schedule performance of international development projects. Int J Project Manage. 28:68–78.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

IkaLA. 2012. Project management for development in Africa: why projects are failing and what can be done about it. Project Manage J. 43:27–41.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

MoeTL,PathranarakulP. 2006. An integrated approach to natural disaster management: public project management and its critical success factors. Disaster Prev Manage.15(3):396–413.

 Google Scholar

YoukerR. 1999. Executive point of view: managing international development projects – lessons learned. Project Manage J. 30:6–7.

 Google Scholar

SaadM, CicmilS, GreenwoodM. 2002. Technology transfer projects in developing countries – furthering the project management perspectives. Int J Project Manage. 20:617–625.

 Google Scholar

DialloA, ThuillierD. 2005. The success of international development projects, trust and communication: an African perspective. Int J Project Manage. 23:237–252.

 Google Scholar

Steinfort P. 2010. Understanding the antecedents of project management best practice – lessons to be learned from aid relief projects [PhD]. Melbourne: School of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT University.

 Google Scholar

ZhaiL, XinY, ChengC. 2009. Understanding the value of project management from a stakeholder's perspective: case study of mega-project management. Project Manage J. 40:99–109.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

DialloA, ThuillierD. 2004. The success dimensions of international development projects: the perceptions of African project coordinators. Int J Project Manage. 22:19–31.

 Google Scholar

KhangDB, MoeTL. 2008. Success criteria and factors for international development projects: a life cycle based framework. Project Manage J. 39:72–84.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Quartey Jnr EL. 1996. Development projects through build-operate schemes: their role and place in developing countries. Int J Project Manage. 14(1):47–52.

 Google Scholar

MuriithiN, CrawfordL. 2003. Approaches to project management in Africa: implications for international development projects. Int J Project Manage. 21:309–319.

 Google Scholar

CrawfordP, BryceP. 2003. Project monitoring and evaluation: a method for enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of aid project implementation. Int J Project Manage. 21:363–373.

 Google Scholar

ChanEHW, RaymondYC. 2003. Cultural considerations in international construction contracts. J Constr Eng Manage. 129(4):375–381.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

IkaLA, DialloA, ThuillierD. 2012. Critical success factors for World Bank projects: an empirical investigation. Int J Project Manage. 30:105–116.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

PMI. 2008. A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK ® Guide). 4th ed. Newtown Square (PA): PMI.

 Google Scholar