More efficient project execution and evaluation with logical framework and project cycle management: evidence from international development projects

References

• Ahonen P. 1999. General considerations and user experiences of project cycle management in a small donor-transitional country context. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 17:97–105.10.3152/147154699781767837
   Google Scholar
• Akroyd D. 1999. Logical framework approach to project planning, socio-economic analysis and to monitoring and evaluation services: a smallholder rice project. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 17:54–66.10.3152/147154699781768007
   Google Scholar
• Baccarini D. 1999. The logical framework method for defining project success. Project Manage J. 30:25–32.
   Google Scholar
• Baum WC. 1970. The project cycle. Finance Dev. 7:2–13.
   Google Scholar
• Baum WC. 1978. The World Bank project cycle. Financ Dev. 15:10–17.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Becker HA, Vanclay F. 2003. The international handbook of social impact assessment. Northampton (MA): Edward Elgar Publishing.10.4337/9781843768616
   Google Scholar
• Belassi W, Tukel OI. 1996. A new framework for determining critical success/failure factors in projects. Int J Project Manage. 14:141–151.10.1016/0263-7863(95)00064-X
   Google Scholar
• Bell S. 2000. Logical frameworks, Aristotle and soft systems: a note on the origins, values and uses of logical frameworks, in reply to Gasper. Public Admin Dev. 20:29–31.10.1002/(ISSN)1099-162X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besner C, Hobbs B. 2004. An empirical investigation of project management practice: in reality what tools do practitioners use? In: Slevin DP, Cleland DI, Pinto JK, editors. Innovations: project management research. NewtonSquare (PA): Project Management Institute; p. 337–351.
   Google Scholar
• Besner C, Hobbs B. 2008a. Project management practice, generic or contextual: a reality check. Project Manage J. 39:16–33.10.1002/pmj.20033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besner C, Hobbs B. 2008b. The reality of project management practice: phase two of an ongoing study, Survey Report. Available from: http://www.pmi.org/learning/~/media/pdf/surveys/besner%20and%20hobbs%20practices%20survey%20report%20phase%202.ashx
   Google Scholar
• Biggs S, Smith S. 2003. A paradox of learning in project cycle management and the role of organizational culture. World Dev. 31:1743–1757.10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00143-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bokor MJK. 2011. The dirty politics of development project hurts. Available from: http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/features/artikel.php?ID=215290
   Google Scholar
• Brown LD, Kalegaonkar A. 2002. Support organizations and the evolution of the NGO sector. Nonprof Volunt Sec Q. 31:231–258.10.1177/0899764002312004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caldwell L. 1988. Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA): origins, evolution, and future directions. Impact Assess. 6:75–83.10.1080/07349165.1988.9725648
   Google Scholar
• Casley D, Kumar K, Mundial B. 1987. Project monitoring and evaluation in agriculture. Johns Hopkins University Press. Available from: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/918581468741299575/Project-monitoring-and-evaluation-in-agriculture
   Google Scholar
• Coleman G. 1987. Logical framework approach to the monitoring and evaluation of agricultural and rural development projects. Proj Apprais. 2:251–259.10.1080/02688867.1987.9726638
   Google Scholar
• Cooke-Davies T. 2002. The “real” success factors on projects. Int J Project Manage. 20:185–190.10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00067-9
   Google Scholar
• Couillard J, Garon S, Riznic J. 2009. The logical framework approach-millennium. Project Manage J. 40:31–44.10.1002/pmj.20117
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crawford P, Bryce P. 2003. Project monitoring and evaluation: a method for enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of aid project implementation. Int J Project Manage. 21:363–373.10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00060-1
   Google Scholar
• Crawford L, Hobbs JB, Turner JR. 2006. Aligning capability with strategy: categorizing projects to do the right projects and to do them right. Project Manage J. 37:38–50.
   Google Scholar
• de Wit A. 1988. Measurement of project success. Int J Project Manage. 6:164–170.10.1016/0263-7863(88)90043-9
   Google Scholar
• Diallo A, Thuillier D. 2004. The success dimensions of international development projects: the perceptions of African project coordinators. Int J Project Manage. 22:19–31.10.1016/S0263-7863(03)00008-5
   Google Scholar
• Diallo A, Thuillier D. 2005. The success of international development projects, trust and communication: an African perspective. Int J Project Manage. 23:237–252.10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.10.002
   Google Scholar
• Durning B. 2014. Benefits of coupling environmental assessment and environmental management to aid disaster risk reduction and management. J Environ Assess Policy Manage. 16:1–25.
   Google Scholar
• Ebrahim A. 2003a. Accountability in practice: mechanisms for NGOs. World Dev. 31:813–829.10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00014-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ebrahim A. 2003b. Making sense of accountability: conceptual perspectives for northern and southern nonprofits. Nonprof Manage Leadersh. 14:191–212.10.1002/nml.v14:2
   Google Scholar
• El-Sabaa S. 2001. The skills and career path of an effective project manager. Int J Project Manage. 19:1–7.10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00034-4
   Google Scholar
• Freeman M, Beale P. 1992. Measuring project success. Project Manage J. 23:8–17.
   Google Scholar
• Gasper DR. 1997. Logical frameworks: a critical assessment: managerial theory, pluralistic practice ISS Working Papers-General Series. Netherlands: Institute of Social Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Gasper D. 2000. Evaluating the ‘logical framework approach’towards learning oriented development evaluation. Public Admin Dev. 20:17–28.10.1002/(ISSN)1099-162X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golini R, Landoni P. 2014. International development projects by non-governmental organizations: an evaluation of the need for specific project management and appraisal tools. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 32:121–135.10.1080/14615517.2014.894088
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golini R, Kalchschmidt M, Landoni P. 2015. Adoption of project management practices: the impact on international development projects of non-governmental organizations. Int J Project Manage. 33:650–663.10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.09.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gore T, Fischer TB. 2014. Uncovering the factors that can support and impede post-disaster EIA practice in developing countries: the case of Aceh Province, Indonesia. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 44:67–75.10.1016/j.eiar.2013.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanisch B, Wald A. 2012. A bibliometric view on the use of contingency theory in project management research. Project Manage J. 43:4–23.10.1002/pmj.v43.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hekala W. 2012. Why donors should care more about project management. Available from: http://www.devex.com/en/news/why-donors-shouldcare-more-about-project/77595
   Google Scholar
• Hermano V, López-Paredes A, Martín-Cruz N, Pajares J. 2013. How to manage international development (ID) projects successfully. Is the PMD Pro1 Guide going to the right direction? Int J Project Manage. 31:22–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyden G. 1998. Building civil society at the turn of the millennium. In: Burdridge J, editor. Beyond prince and merchant: Citizen participation and the rise of civil society. New York (NY): PACT publications; p. 17–47.
   Google Scholar
• Ika LA. 2012. Project management for development in Africa: Why projects are failing and what can be done about it. Project Manage J. 43: 27–41.10.1002/pmj.v43.4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ika LA, Diallo A, Thuillier D. 2010. Project management in the international development industry. Int J Manag Projects Bus. 3:61–93.10.1108/17538371011014035
   Google Scholar
• Ika LA, Diallo A, Thuillier D. 2012. Critical success factors for World Bank projects: an empirical investigation. Int J Project Manage. 30:105–116.10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.03.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ika LA, Hodgson D. 2010. Towards a critical perspective in international development project management. Paper presented at Making Projects Critical 5, Bristol Business School; Bristol, England.
   Google Scholar
• Ika LA, Saint-Macary J. 2012. The project planning myth in international development. Int J Manag Projects Bus. 5:420–439.
   Google Scholar
• Khang DB, Moe TL. 2008. Success criteria and factors for international development projects: a life cycle based framework. Project Manage J. 39:72–84.10.1002/pmj.20034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koch DJ, Dreher A, Nunnenkamp P, Thiele R. 2009. Keeping a low profile: what determines the allocation of aid by non-governmental organizations? World Dev. 37:902–918.10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.09.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kovach H, Neligan C, Burall S. 2003. The Global Accountability Report. London: One World Trust. Available from: http://ocw.unizar.es/ocw/pluginfile.php/102/mod_label/intro/ep-f-001-kovach.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kwak YH. 2002. Critical success factors in international development project management. Paper presented at the CIB 10th International Symposium Construction Innovation & Global Competitiveness; Cincinnati, Ohio.
   Google Scholar
• Landoni P, Corti B. 2011. The management of international development projects: moving toward a standard approach or differentiation? Project Manage J. 42:45–61.10.1002/pmj.v42.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim CS, Mohamed MZ. 1999. Criteria of project success: an exploratory re-examination. Int J Project Manage. 17:243–248.10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00040-4
   Google Scholar
• Lindberg P, Voss C, Blackmon KL. 1998. International manufacturing strategies. Kluwer Academic.10.1007/978-1-4757-2795-1
   Google Scholar
• Link 2007. 2008. Un mestiere difficile 2008 – cooperazione internazionale – lavorare con le ONG. Rome: Link 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall R, Fischer TB. 2006. Regional electricity transmission planning and SEA: the case of the electricity company ScottishPower. J Environ Plann Manage. 49:279–299.10.1080/09640560500508155
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mingus N. 2002. Alpha teach yourself project management in 24 hours. Madison (WI): CWL.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Sadler B. 2010. The art and science of impact assessment: results of a survey of IAIA members. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 28:77–82.10.3152/146155110X488835
   Google Scholar
• Mosley P. 2001. A simple technology for poverty-oriented project assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 19:53–67.10.3152/147154601781767177
   Google Scholar
• Munns AK, Bjeirmi BF. 1996. The role of project management in achieving project success. Int J Project Manage. 14:81–87.10.1016/0263-7863(95)00057-7
   Google Scholar
• Newcomer K, Baradei LE, Garcia S. 2013. Expectations and capacity of performance measurement in NGOs in the development context. Public Admin Dev. 33:62–79.10.1002/pad.v33.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicolaisen MS, Fischer T. 2016. Special issue on ex-post evaluation of environmental assessment. J Env Assessment Policy Manage. 18:1–4.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2008. The Paris declaration on aid effectiveness and the Accra agenda for action 2005/2008. Paris. Available from: http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/34428351.pdf
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2009a. The Development Assistance Committee’s Italy Peer review. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/dac/peer-reviews/Italy_peerreview2014.pdf
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2009b. Development Co-operation Report 2009. Available from: http://www.oecd.org/dac/42193704.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Putnam RD, Leonardi R, Nanetti R. 1994. Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Raimondi A, Antonelli G. 2001. Manuale di cooperazione allo sviluppo: linee evolutive, spunti problematici, prospettive. Torino: SEI.
   Google Scholar
• Ranasinghe M. 2008. Stakeholder consultation in the decision making for development projects using educated trade-offs. Keynote address. CIB W 89 International conference on building education and research in conjunction with CIB W 113, CIB TG 63, CIB TG 67, CIB TG 68, and CIB TG69; Kandalama, Sri Lanka.
   Google Scholar
• Smith P. 2000. A comment on the limitations of the logical framework method, in reply to Gasper, and to Bell. Public Admin Dev. 20:439–441.10.1002/(ISSN)1099-162X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solem RR. 1987. The logical framework approach to project design, review and evaluation in AID genesis, impact, problems, and opportunities, AID Working Paper No 99. Washington (DC): Center for Development Information & Evaluation Agency for International Development.
   Google Scholar
• Vakil AC. 1997. Confronting the classification problem: toward a taxonomy of NGOs. World Dev. 25:2057–2070.10.1016/S0305-750X(97)00098-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanclay F. 2003. International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 21:5–12.10.3152/147154603781766491
   Google Scholar
• White D, Fortune J. 2002. Current practice in project management – an empirical study. Int J Project Manage. 20:1–11.10.1016/S0263-7863(00)00029-6
   Google Scholar
• Woolcock M. 1998. Social capital and economic development: toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory Soc. 27:151–208.10.1023/A:1006884930135
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Youker R. 2003. The nature of international development projects. PMI Conference, Baltimore.
   Google Scholar