Chapter 4

Governmental and Private Guidelines

In the previous chapter, we have presented the main methods and tools (PCM and LF), considering their first or most widespread versions. In this chapter, we further discuss and compare the different versions of these instruments.

In the first part of the chapter we compare the project management standards adopted by five of the main worldwide governmental agencies. In the second part of the chapter, we compare the two most diffused private guidelines among themselves and with the PMBOK^® Guide developed by the Project Management Institute, that is one of the most widespread project management standards.

4.1 Governmental Guidelines

PCM and LF have been adopted by some of the most important governmental agencies. However, there are some differences in how these methodologies are used, witnessing a lack of standards in the management of ID projects.

In order to clarify the approaches used to manage ID projects and their evolution, we studied and reported in Landoni and Corti (2011) the PCM standards adopted by five of the main governmental international development agencies in the world: the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), European Commission (EC), Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), and US Agency for International Development (USAID).

In the following, we summarize the results of this comparison. More extensively detailed results can be found in Landoni and Corti (2011).

In order to make the comparison uniform, the analysis is limited to governmental agencies and is based on official documents published by these agencies.

The five governmental standards here considered are analyzed within a four-dimensional framework consisting of:

• Project life cycle: role and description of the project life cycle and its phases.
• Logical framework: role and description of the LF, if adopted.
• Organization and participation aspects: project team, roles and responsibility, and relations with beneficiaries and the project steering committee, level of involvement of stakeholders during the life cycle of the project.
• Tools and techniques of project management: standard and advanced tools and techniques of project management (e.g., work breakdown structure, responsibility assignment matrix, etc.).

The dimensions of analysis were chosen considering the characteristics of ID projects, preliminary analysis of governmental agencies’ approaches, and the literature on project management. The analysis focuses on the first two dimensions (project cycle and logical framework) but highlights two further dimensions in order to have a simple but complete analysis of management approaches. In particular, the project cycle dimension allows us to understand the way an organization leads a project and how it breaks the project up into different phases to better control and evaluate it. The logical framework dimension considers whether and how an agency uses this or a similar tool, while highlighting the reasons behind these decisions. The organization and participation aspects dimension underlines how much importance is given to the effective and collaborative relationships between project actors. This is a fundamental issue because, as Cracknell (2000) states, there is no way of measuring the impact of development aid without closely involving the beneficiaries and stakeholders in the whole process. Finally, the tools and techniques of project management dimension allow us to verify if and how standard and advanced tools and techniques of project management are considered in managing ID projects.

Following this analytical framework, the main elements of the approaches implemented by the selected governmental international development agencies are summarized in Table 4.1. In the following sections, the most significant differences are discussed.

4.1.1 Project cycle

The five agencies adopt project cycles that differ from each other, even though they all come from Baum’s seminal work on the subject (Baum, 1970). The majority of agencies (EC, CIDA, and AusAID) use a cycle with five or six phases, very similar to Baum’s, but with differences in content and in the names of the phases. JICA works with a smaller number of phases (four), following the original ZOPP project cycle, and USAID’s approach differs significantly from the others by managing its interventions using a cycle of only three steps. Moreover, none of these project cycles has a phase exclusively concerning the financing of the project, like Baum’s negotiation phase; only the EC explicitly highlights the financing decision in the process and stresses its importance.

In addition, the comparison has shown that the agencies assign a different importance to the concept of the project cycle. For instance, AusAID does not explicitly cite the sequence of its project cycle, but the EC considers PCM pivotal.

Drawing a conclusion from the comparison, a cycle with approximately five phases seems to be more useful to ID project management: the phases should not be too wide and fraught with contents (as happens in project cycles with less phases) and, at the same time, the phases should not be too small and dispersed. Its well-framed segmentation actually provides a path of close deadlines that help project managers to punctually follow the project plan and make the stakeholders aware of the development of the intervention.

4.1.2 Logical framework

Significant differences have emerged concerning the adoption of the logical framework in managing ID projects. The analysis shows that there are two main trends. AusAID, EC, and JICA recognize the logical framework as an essential tool used to manage, communicate, and summarize the project (not only in the planning and implementation phase, but especially during the monitoring and evaluation phases). USAID and CIDA, on the other hand, have recently removed the logical framework from their guidelines.

In relation to the first trend, EC and JICA have maintained the logical framework in its original format (proposed by USAID in 1969), except for the labels of rows and columns, which differ slightly from the original in definition but not in meaning. AusAID uses a modified version of the matrix, working with a logical framework with four columns and five rows, in which the fifth row stands for “project activities.”

Regarding the second trend, CIDA and USAID recently modified their guidelines by removing the logical framework and adopting different tools.

4.1.3 CIDA

CIDA introduced Performance Measurement Framework (PMF), Risk Register, and Logic Model (LM), which clearly replace the logical framework.

The Logic Model is a depiction of the causal or logical relationships between activities, outputs, and the outcomes of a given initiative. It is divided into six levels: the bottom three levels (inputs, activities, and outputs) address the “how” of an initiative, whereas the top three levels (outcomes) constitute the actual changes that take place: the development results.

The performance measurement framework is a plan to systematically collect relevant data over the lifetime of an investment to assess and demonstrate the progress made in achieving expected results (CIDA, 2009a). The PMF documents the major elements of the monitoring system and ensures that performance information is collected on a regular basis and also contains information on baseline, targets, and the responsibility for data collection (see Table 4.2).

Table 4.2: Performance measurement framework (adapted from CIDA, 2009).

Expected Results	Outputs and outcomes coming from the logic model reported into the appropriate row
Indicators	What will be used to measure actual results
Baseline Data	Set of conditions existing at the outset of a program
Target	Particular value for an indicator to be accomplished by a specific date in the future
Data Sources	Individuals, organizations or document from which data about indicators will be obtained
Data Collection Method	How data I collected, depending on the type of indicator, the purpose of the information being gathered and the frequency of collection
Frequency	How often the information are collected
Responsibility	Who is responsible for collecting and/or validating the data

Finally, the risk register is a tool that lists the most important risks, the results of their analysis, and a summary of mitigation strategies. Information on the status of the risk is included over a regular reporting schedule. The risk register should be continuously updated and reviewed throughout the course of a project.

4.1.4 USAID

USAID developed a framework for results and performance management and refers to the logical framework as an optional tool.

The results framework, as reported in the Program Planning section (USAID, 2009a), is a planning, communication, and management tool that conveys the development hypothesis implicit in strategy, the critical assumptions of the intervention, and the cause-and-effect linkages between assistance objectives (AOs; the most ambitious results that USAID, along with its partners, can materially affect) and intermediate results (important results that are seen as an essential step to achieving AOs). The results framework does not have a mandatory format, but generally, it has a graphical form that is structured on different levels, followed by a narrative summary (see Figure 4.1).

Performance Management Plan is a tool used to plan and manage the process of assessing and reporting progress toward achieving an assistance objective (USAID, 2009b). The performance management plan should state the full set of performance indicators that are used to assess the intervention; provide baseline and target values for each performance indicator; and specify the source of the data, the method, and the schedule for collection. Furthermore, the performance management plan should describe the known data limitations and data-quality assessment procedures; estimate the costs of collecting, analyzing, and reporting performance data and plan how these will be financed; and estimate possible evaluation efforts (USAID, 2003). There is no standard format for the project management plan: the project team should use the format that best fits the management and communication needs.

In spite of these changes, the tools currently used by CIDA and USAID are more detailed but have the same scope and are similar to the logical framework.

A deeper comparison shows that both the results framework and LM relate to the first column of the logical framework (the narrative summary of the project), with the exception that the results framework also includes critical assumptions (the fourth column of the logical framework), whereas CIDA places them inside the risk register. Performance Management Plan and PMF are tools used to plan and manage the monitoring process, and both relate to the second and third columns of the logical framework (performance indicators and mean of verification). In addition, Performance Management Plan contains supplementary information regarding data limitations, quality assessment, financing procedures, and operational costs.

In addition to being similar to the logical framework in contents, the new tools introduced by CIDA and USAID are also similar to the logical framework in that they are used not only as planning, management, monitoring, and evaluation framework tools, but also as means of communication between project actors and instruments that support a coherent development of the intervention.

An empirical analysis could be useful in understanding the pros and cons of these new frameworks and, in particular, in understanding this new approach based on in-depth tools. From a theoretical perspective, large projects can benefit from more detailed and broader tools to systematically arrange all the information, whereas for smaller projects, the easier and more concise logical framework should be more effective.

4.1.5 Organization and participation aspects

Organizational aspects are included in the guidelines examined but they are not described in detail. USAID and CIDA provide specific and exhaustive directives about the project team and, in particular, about composition, its roles and responsibilities, relations with beneficiaries and planning committees, and also about administrative and operational aspects that involve participants. EC guidelines don’t provide any specific section about the project team, but they describe the task manager’s relationships and key tasks and responsibilities for each step of the project cycle. AusAID reports only suggestions regarding the organizational structure and stakeholders that should be involved in the project, whereas JICA scarcely considers organizational aspects (JICA does not provide any directive or suggestion about these aspects).

In terms of participation, the comparison shows that all agencies promote participation, but it points out that development agencies that adopted the logical framework before it was modified and set into PCM by GTZ give less attention to participatory planning compared with agencies that built their PCM based on the ZOPP approach. USAID, AusAID, and CIDA are less focused on participation, even if they state the importance of the involvement of the stakeholders and beneficiaries. EC and JICA instead define, in detail, the methods and approaches that should be adopted to ensure and enhance participation.

4.1.6 Tools and techniques of project management

As many authors have highlighted, there are many tools and techniques in project management (e.g., the Gantt chart, WBS, etc.) that can be useful in all types of projects. Youker (1999, p. 6), considering international development projects, noted that the problems are usually similar and “the solution is to learn the basic lessons of good project management and to apply them in the specific context of each specific project.”

In this context, the analysis shows that all agencies refer to the common techniques of project management, with some differences on the level of detail, with the exception of JICA, which doesn’t provide information on this topic. AusAID and EC suggest tools and techniques to manage every phase of the project cycle and provide their descriptions in specific sections of the guidelines. CIDA gives details only on its core tools but quotes well-known techniques, such as work breakdown structure or budget and schedule. USAID also describes in depth its core tools and, in addition, has published some booklets on performance monitoring and evaluation activities. It should be highlighted that only AusAID, CIDA, and USAID have a thorough section about risk management and assessment, and that only USAID dedicates an entire chapter to budgeting and financing. Regarding the standard methods used for implementing the logical framework, only AusAID and EC describe them.

4.1.7 Comparison conclusions

As the analysis shows, even if the considered standard start from the same roots (Baum’s PCM and the original logical framework from USAID), they now present differences and probably will diverge even more over time. Furthermore, international organizations (e.g., FAO, UNIDO, etc.) have developed their own standards, as have other countries not examined here (including other countries in the European Union). Even if there are still many similarities between the approaches, it could become difficult, especially in the future, for project personnel, project managers, stakeholders, and others to orient themselves with the different standards and terminologies, especially when strictly required to do so by funding agencies in multilateral projects or by different funding organizations. In particular, these difficulties are relevant for developing countries’ organizations and individuals who have to deal with different partners.

Furthermore, to add to the complexity of the existing standards, private organizations have developed and proposed ad hoc guidelines for international projects, as discussed in the following paragraph.

4.2 Private international guidelines

Beside governmental guidelines designed specifically for NGOs dealing with ID project management, there are also private guidelines developed for the same objective by non-profit organizations and professionals. In particular, the two most widespread of such guidelines are the ones developed by PM4NGOs and PM4DEV.

The first organization, PM4NGOs, is an organization devoted to training and disseminating project management knowledge among NGOs. This initiative was born in 2007 with the scope to promote a standard of project management in the developing sector. Many organizations support PM4NGOs and in particular the Project Management Institute Educational Foundation (PMIEF), which encourage the spread of project management knowledge with the objective of improving the economic, educational, and social conditions.

PM4NGOs published two methodologies called PMDPro and PMDPro1. They offer a certification program divided in three levels:

• Level 1: general understanding of the PMDPro.
• Level 2: Deep understanding and ability to apply the concepts of PMDPro. It requires also a basic certification from another organization (CAPM, IPMA Level D, Prince2 Foundation).
• Level 3: Deep understanding and ability to apply the concepts of PMDPro to ID projects. It requires also an advanced certification from another organization (PMP, IPMA Level C, Prince2 Practitioner).

In our analysis, we considered only level 1 and 2 as level 3 is still under development.

The second organization, PM4DEV, is involved not only in training activities, but also in consulting. They offer three types of courses (Fundamentals of Project Management, Mastering Project Management, Adaptive Project Management), and they developed their specific methodologies. Through the experience of project managers who have worked in international organizations for development, the main objective of PM4DEV is to provide to the fundamental needs of the community involved in the developing projects, offering them tools and processes to plan, execute, and monitor and control the project in a more consistent and reliable manner. In our analysis, we considered only Fundamentals of Project Management and Mastering Project Management, as they are standard courses, while the Adaptive Project Management is tailored to the organization’s needs.

We compared the two aforementioned guidelines with the PMBOK^® Guide—Fourth Edition (PMI, 2008) developed by the Project Management Institute. We chose this standard because it is one of the most widespread project management standards and it is widely considered a standard reference.

The elements of comparison were:

• Project cycle: phases and structure
• Project management processes considered
• Tools considered (with a qualitative indication of the level of detail provided for each tool). We considered both standard project management tools (e.g., Gantt chart) and specific tools for ID projects (e.g., logical framework)

Finally, we analyzed how the methodologies specific for NGOs address the peculiarities discussed in Chapter 2.

4.2.1 Project life cycle: phases and structure

The “life cycle” of a project consists of “phases that connect the beginning of a project with its end” to provide better management control through appropriate links to the ongoing operation of performing organizations” (PMI, 2004, 2008). In the context of ID projects, as Biggs and Smith (2003, p. 1743) observe, the project cycle consists of a number of progressive phases “that lead from identification of needs and objectives, through planning and implementation of activities to address these needs and objectives, to assessment of the outcomes.”

The project life cycles look very similar in terms of phases that are included (Figure 4.2).

We can observe that PM4NGO calls the final phase as end of project transition to highlight the importance not only to deliver the project, but also to pass it to the final users. This phase is so important that there is a specific supporting tool: the transition planning matrix shown in Table 4.3.

Moreover, PM4NGO puts the main milestones to be included in the project (the small white triangles) on the different stages. PM4NGO also splits the initiation phase in two.

First there is the project identification and design phase. The aim of this phase is to define the scope and objectives of the project, identify the stakeholders, and write down the project charter. During this phase, it is necessary to get a good understanding of the project environment, including the identification and analysis of the key problems afflicting the prospect beneficiaries. It is important to have a deep understanding of the situation, including the perspective of all the stakeholders whose interests can be sometimes not be explicit. Facilitating the discussion among the stakeholders can be very beneficial to address this issue. This phase is considered very critical; thus a set of tools is proposed to support project managers (Table 4.4).

Table 4.4: Tools for the initiation phase (PM4NGO, 2012).

Objective	Tool
Organize information	Vulnerability matrices
Prioritize assessment data	Mind mapping Affinity diagrams Ranking exercises and matrices
Identify current state of service provision	Gap assessment analysis Mapping
Promote critical thinking by project stakeholders	Group discussions Focus groups Workshops
Investigate cause and effect relationships	Force field analysis Problem trees

After the project identification and design, it is possible to proceed with the project set up phase in which the specific objectives and the project charter are agreed.

On the other side, PM4DEV introduces the adapt phase between monitor and plan. Every project management guideline (including the PMBOK^® Guide and PM4NGO) states that it is important to review the plan over time; however, PM4DEV gives particular attention to the fact the ID projects are subject to many changes during execution, and an adaptive project management style is often needed. Adaptive project management differs from traditional project management for a series of practices summarized in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5: Traditional vs. Adaptive project Management (PM4DEV, 2011)

Approach	Traditional Project Management	Adaptive Project Management
Project Goal	Getting the job done on time, on budget, and within donor requirements	Getting project results, meeting multiple stakeholder criteria
Project Plan	A collection of activities that are executed as planned to meet the project constraints	A planning process to achieve the expected goals and business results
Planning	Plan once at project initiation	Plan at outset and adapt the plan when needed
Managerial Approach	Rigid, focused on initial plan	Flexible, changing, adaptive
Project Work	Predictable, certain, linear, simple	Unpredictable, uncertain, nonlinear, complex
Environment Effect	Minimal, detached after the project is launched	Affects the project throughout its execution
Project Control	Identify deviations from plan, and put things back on track	Identify changes in the environment, and adjust the plans accordingly
Characteristics	All projects are the same	All projects differ
Management Style	One size fits all	Adaptive approach; one size does not fit all

4.2.2 Project management processes considered

Project management is not merely a set of tools, but rather a set of processes that are supported by specific tools. These processes can run in parallel or in sequence during a project. Seeing project management as a set of processes is fundamental for keeping a project under control, since each process has to be characterized by a person who is responsible and accountable, required inputs, expected activities, and measurable outputs. This central role of project management processes is acknowledged by the three guides in analysis and its used as a reference to organize the concepts. Table 4.6 shows the project management processes described by the different guides.

As we can see, the project scope, time, cost, quality, stakeholders and risk management processes are mentioned by the three guidelines and with similar meanings. Inside each process, however, some differences exist in terms of tools and level of detail.

Project Scope Management. About the scope management process, the three guides highlight the importance of the work breakdown structure (WBS) as a supporting tool. However, PM4NGO and PM4DEV also present the Logical Framework in this process as a fundamental tool. Another difference is that the PMBOK^® Guide and PM4DEV highlight the importance not only of defining the scope but also of monitoring and adapting the scope over time.

Project Time Management. About the time management process, the definition is similar for the three guides All guides consider time management the efforts to define the sequencing and duration of the activities and to keep track of them. Also, the basic tools proposed are the same (network diagram, gantt chart, critical path). Also, some more advanced concepts such as the slack, Project Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT), resource leveling, crashing activities duration and fast tracking are reported by the three guides. The PMBOK^® Guide is, however, the most complete in terms of tools and concepts. For instance it reports the concepts of the rolling wave planning, Monte Carlo simulation, what-if scenario, and critical chain method.

Project Cost Management. Also for cost management, the definition and the tools proposed are very similar. The three guides report the different ways to estimate costs (top-down, bottom-up, and parametric), the baseline (or cash flow schedule), and they explain the earned value system. In addition, the PMBOK^® Guide reports the possibility of a three-point estimate for costs (most-likely, optimistic and pessimistic) and also mentions the contingency allocation.

Project Risk Management. Next, all the three guides treat project risk management. It is not surprising that also the specific guides (i.e., PM4NGO and PM4DEV) thought it important to devote a chapter to an advanced topic like risk management since one of the peculiarities of the ID projects is the difficult and risky environment. The PMBOK^® Guide is probably the most exhaustive, as after the risk identification phase, it shows both qualitative risk analysis (i.e., risks are classified in terms of probability of occurrence and impact on the project) and quantitative analysis (statistical analysis of the probability of occurrence, sensitivity analysis, modeling, and simulation). PM4DEV is slightly more detailed than PM4NGO, but both provide only information and tools essential for the management of project risk.

Project Human Resources Management. The human resources management process includes organization, management, and guidance of the project team. The project team consists of people assigned with roles and responsibilities to bring the project to completion. The type and number of members of the project may be subject to frequent changes as the project progresses. PM4DEV introduced an interesting insight in reference to the specificity of ID projects. These types of projects, because of their complex nature, require an interdisciplinary approach that can be obtained integrating resources with different backgrounds on the project team. Another important aspect regards the project manager who has to keep high motivation on the team and integrate the efforts of all the participants. The project manager must be able to create an environment in which the members of the project team are dealt with professionally and personally in a context of mutual trust. The three guides present some standard tools such as the organizational chart or the RACI¹ matrix. However, PM4NGO is probably less detailed about human resources and team management while PM4DEV devotes a lot of space to managing teams and conflicts.

Project Stakeholder Management. Next, Project Stakeholder Management is considered by the three guides. Until the fourth edition, the PMBOK^® Guide considered the stakeholder management inside the project communication management process, but starting from the fifth edition, stakeholder management is included as a separate Knowledge Area. It is not surprising that also the specific guides devote a chapter to this topic, given the high number of stakeholders is one of the peculiarities of ID projects. The objectives of this process are mainly to identify, engage and manage the stakeholders. The main tools described in this section are the stakeholder matrix and the stakeholder map.

Project Integration Management. First of all, only the PMBOK^® Guide identifies integration management as a specific process. Even if the other specific guides recognize the importance of this process, only the PMBOK^® Guide explains in detail the necessity of managing all the project management processes in an integrated way as a success factor.

Project Quality Management. Quality management is not included by PM4NGO as some issues related to quality management are discussed in the scope management section. However, the PMBOK^® Guide and PM4DEV present here several tools, such as: control charts and Pareto charts. The PMBOK^® Guide gives importance also to the cost of quality (i.e., all the incremental costs due to poor quality as rework, scraps, liabilities, warranty work, and lost business).

Project Communication Management. Project communication management is a process explicitly considered by PM4DEV and the PMBOK^® Guide. It is the management of communications within the project. This process is essential to allow the coordination of the activities carried by different parties. PM4NGO refers to the management of communications, but has no dedicated section.

Project Procurement/Supply Chain/Contract Management. The three guides call this process in different ways but they refer to very similar concepts. For the PMBOK^® Guide, it is procurement, supply chain for PM4NGO, and contract for PM4DEV, but they all mean the set of activities needed to buy or acquire products, services, and resources needed outside the project team. Clearly, PM4DEV gives more emphasis on the contractual aspect of this phase that includes negotiating the terms and conditions between the parties and documentation of changes that may arise during the project. On the other side, PM4DEV puts less emphasis on contracts but adds logistic aspects (i.e., inventory management, warehousing, and transportation) and asset management in case capital goods are purchased.

Project Justification Management. Finally, PM4NGO, unlike the other two guides, explains the importance of project justification management as a mean to provide evidence on the actual importance and impact of the project throughout the life cycle.

4.2.3 Tools considered

As a last analysis, we compared the tools described by the different guides. Table 4.7 summarizes the results regarding the tools². In general, all the tools included in the PMBOK^® Guide are presented also in the other two guides. However, some tools have a description that is much shorter than those in the PMBOK^® Guide while the PMBOK^® Guide does not include the logical framework and trees analyses (problem tree, objectives tree and alternative tree).

Project charter. The PMBOK^® Guide and PM4NGO provide an accurate description of the project charter that identifies the purpose of the project with a high-level perspective and represents the authorization to start the project. Moreover, PM4NGO states that the project charter is also useful to communicate the aims of the project to the stakeholders. Moreover, it should be considered a living document that is updated every time there is a major change in the project. PM4DEV, instead, provides a quite brief description of this tool.

WBS. All three guides clearly define the characteristics of a WBS, that it is a useful tool to represent the scope of the project. In this case, PM4NGO provides a quite brief description, while the other two guides are more complete in terms of guidelines to be followed to build a proper WBS.

Critical Path Method / Network diagram. About these techniques, PMBOK^® Guide is the most complete, although PM4DEV is quite detailed as well, explaining, for instance, all the precedence typologies (end-to-end, start-to-finish, etc.). PM4NGO offers a less-detailed overview of these tools.

Gantt chart. Another important tool for managing project time and one of the first to be introduced in project management is the Gantt Chart. In this case, the PMBOK^® Guide does not go into many details, while the other guides do show how this tool can be used not only as a planning tool, but also in the controlling phase.

Earned Value Management System. The earned value management system is the basic instrument for monitoring the progress of the project both in time and money. In this case, the PMBOK^® Guide and PM4DEV have an accurate description of all performance indicators. PM4NGO offers just an overview of the methodology without any reference to the presence of specific time and cost performance indicators. However, PM4NGO provides a different approach for the project control that is directly related to the structure of the logical framework. This approach is supported by the project monitoring and evaluation matrix (Table 4.8).

Risk Analysis. This analysis allows you to classify and quantify the possible risks (with positive or negative outcomes) that may occur during the life of a project. As mentioned in the process description, the PMBOK^® Guide provides a very accurate description of qualitative and quantitative techniques for risk analysis. The other two show only the classic probability-impact matrix, even if they provide several explanations of how to perform effective risk management (e.g., keeping issue and risk logs).

Logical Framework. The logical framework is certainly the most widely used technique in ID project management. By consequence, the two specific guides—PM4DEV and PM4NGOs—include this tool (Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4). Both advocate this tool as useful to identify the logic behind the project and therefore to be used in the planning, monitoring, and evaluating phases. The structure is very standard and similar for both the guides.

Actually, PM4NGO mentions the fact that the LF can be adapted for the specific needs of the project. Interestingly, both PM4NGO and PM4DEV do not take into account all the criticisms that have been devoted to this instrument, as discussed in the previous chapters.

Problem tree, objective tree, alternative tree. The problem tree (Figure 4.5), objective tree (Figure 4.6), and alternative tree (Figure 4.7) are introduced by PM4NGO and are meant to be used together. The problem tree is a cause-effect map illustrating the main problems and their causes.

Next, the objective tree identifies the potential interventions to address the problems identified. “In its simplest form, the objective tree is a mirror image of the problem tree—where each statement in the problem tree is transformed into a positive objective statement. While the problem tree displays cause and effect relationships, the objective tree shows the ‘means-to-end’ relationships” (PM4NGO, 2012).

From this analysis it is possible to build an alternative tree. It is a similar map that goes from the actions undertaken in the project to the final objectives. Of course there is an overlap between the main problems identified before and the main effects reported here. This map also tells what is in and what is out the scope of the project.

Stakeholder map and matrix. The stakeholder analysis matrix is an essential tool in which all the information regarding the analysis performed to identify the characteristics of the project actors are gathered. The three guides are quite overlapped, presenting both the matrix and the map (Figure 4.8 and Figure 4.9). PM4DEV also proposes a different possible map (Figure 4.10).

Going back to the peculiarities identified in chapter 2, it is not straightforward if and how these are addressed by the specific methodologies (i.e., PM4NGO and PM4DEV). However, we deduced from the literature and interviews that the peculiarities make the adoption of specific tools (i.e., LF and trees) useful. Also, a tool like the stakeholder matrix becomes very relevant, given the high number of stakeholders with blurred roles; however, there is still a gap about how all these tools should be adopted according to their specific peculiarities.

Even if some studies (e.g., Lovegrove, Gebre, Lee, & Kumar, 2011) provide evidence that several ID projects don’t reach the objectives, from the interviews performed, we derived that both the standard and the specific tools can provide some help to address the peculiarities as shown in Table 4.9.

As can be seen in Table 4.9, for each peculiarity there are at least two tools that can offer some help. Therefore, rather than a lack of tools, the difficulties encountered by project managers seem to lie in the integrated use these tools. About this, it is very meaningful what the PM4NGO guide says:

“Notice that the major categories of work in the WBS are consistent with the contents of the project logical framework. However, the WBS will include a level of comprehensiveness and detail that is often absent from the logical framework. There might be additional categories of work included in the WBS that were not included in the logical framework. The WBS is also intended to provide the level of specific detail that is often missing in the logical framework.” (PM4NGO, 2012).

This paragraph shows how an important tool like the logical framework does not have a clear integration with the other tools. This evidence, in addition to the critiques noted in the past, leaves space for further research.

In conclusion, from the comparison of project management we noticed that the PMBOK^® Guide is, as expected, very complete due to the accuracy of arguments and quantity of tools described. However, being a general project management guide, it misses some specific tools (e.g. logical framework) and reference to the context of ID projects. Next, PM4DEV is quite complete as well, and includes tools designed for ID projects. In the guide there are also several references and peculiarities of ID projects, for which special precautions are introduced. Finally, PM4NGO looks lighter in terms of number and depth of description of tools and processes, probably because it requires a certification from another project management institution. However, it makes very important and unique points in the project life cycle phases, processes, and tools and there are many references to the particular conditions encountered in the management of ID projects.

We can thus highlight the fact that, for a complete understanding of all the necessary tools to correctly manage an ID project, PM4DEV, PM4NGOS and the PMBOK^® Guide are quite complementary to each other. Therefore, a promising area of development can be represented by an integration of the different contributions.

References

Baum, W.C., (1970). The project cycle. Finance and development, 7, 2, 2–13.

Biggs, S., & Smith, S. (2003). A paradox of learning in project cycle management and the role of organizational culture. World Development, 31, 1743–1757.

Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), (2009). Cida Business Roadmap - Overview, ver. 4.0. Retrieved from: http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/D30F67C80186B066492575B50018AB6C-CIDA-Apr2009.pdf

Cracknell, B.E. (2000). Evaluating development aid: Issues, problems and solutions. Sage Publications Pvt. Ltd., London, UK

Landoni, P., & Corti, B. (2011). The management of international development projects: Moving toward a standard approach or differentiation? Project Management Journal, 42, 45–61.

Lovegrove, N., Gebre, B., Lee, T., & Kumar, R. (2011). McKinsey-Devex survey results: Practitioners see need for new approaches to system-wide reform. retrieved online at: http://www.devex.com/en/news/mckinsey-devex-survey-results-practitioners-see/77026

PMI (2004). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK^® Guide)—Third Edition. Newtown Square, PA.

PMI (2008). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK^® Guide)—Fourth Edition. Newtown Square, PA.

PM4NGO, (2012). A Guide to the PMD Pro1: Project Management for Development Professionals–Level 1, Retrieved from: http://www.pm4ngos.org/

PM4DEV, (2010). Mastering Project Management, Atlanta, GA.

PM4DEV, (2011). Fundamentals of Project Management for Development Organizations - Third Edition, Retrieved from: www.pm4dev.com

US Agency for International Development (USAID), (2003). The performance management toolkit. Retrieved from: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNACT871.pdf

US Agency for International Development (USAID), (2009a). ADS—Automated directives system series 200. Retrieved from: http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/200/

US Agency for International Development (USAID), (2009b). Glossary of ADS terms. Retrieved from: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADO381.pdf

Youker, R., (1999). Executive point of view: managing international development projects-Lessons learned. Project Management Journal, 30, 6–7.

---

¹ RACI are the initials of the main roles included: Responsible, Accountable, to be Consulted, to be Informed.

² A description of the tools is reported in the Appendix