Chapter 6

Conclusion

Every year, international cooperation provides significant support to developing countries. According to Diallo and Thuillier (2005), most international assistance provided by governmental or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) is managed via projects. Projects are central also for both profit and nonprofit organizations working on international development (ID). In order to achieve their objectives, these organizations have to manage projects and programs constantly; their work is based on planning projects, attracting funders and supporters for projects, hiring and managing project officers and project managers, evaluating projects, and disseminating the results of the projects.

However, despite the relevance of projects and project management for international development, there is increasing evidence that additional efforts are still needed on this theme from both organizations and scholars.

Our analyses have shown that international development projects are complex issues with specific characteristics. We have identified six peculiarities that strongly characterize international development projects: i) the lack of a defined and/or powerful customer; ii) a high number of stakeholders; iii) a difficult, complex, and risky environment; iv) the constant resource scarcity; v) the complexity of using project management techniques in the context of other cultures; vi) the presence of intangible project outputs, difficult to be defined and measured.

Given these difficulties, organizations and project managers working on international development projects have frequently justified themselves regarding the limits and the problems of their projects (overdue milestones, project overspending, etc.). As a matter of fact, these project managers and organizations deserve to be praised for their work and efforts, in many cases provided with the help of volunteers, in critical contexts, and with selfless objectives and actions.

However, something more can be done to improve efficiency and efficacy, and this is something that the international development organizations owe to their funders (including taxpayers and small donors) and to the poor populations they want to help.

We have shown that, to cope with the peculiarities of ID projects, specific methodologies and tools have been introduced. In particular, we have presented and described the project-cycle management (PCM) introduced by Baum (1970) that has become a standard practice for development agencies (Biggs & Smith, 2003, p. 1743) and its core tool (the logical framework), that is widespread among ID project managers and it is often considered as a stand-alone tool (Couillard, Garon, & Riznic, 2009).

We have shown the limits of these tools from a theoretical point of view and considering the evidence that emerged in the literature and during interviews with experts. Furthermore, we have analyzed adoption of these tools in private guidelines (PM4DEV and PM4NGOS) and we have compared these guidelines with the PMBOK® Guide developed by the Project Management Institute, which is one of the most widespread project management standards. From our analysis, the two most widespread methodologies used to manage these projects (PM4DEV and PM4NGO) consider the peculiarities of international development projects by slightly adapting the standard project management approaches. However, in both cases, the life cycles and the processes have only limited differences from the ones proposed in the PMBOK® Guide. The main differences seem to be in the selection and use of specific project tools; in particular, both methodologies for ID projects introduce the logical framework and other additional tools for the initiation phase. We have observed that, for a complete understanding of all the necessary tools to correctly manage an ID project, PM4DEV, PM4NGO and the PMBOK® Guide guidelines are complementary to each other. Therefore, a promising area of development can be represented by a proper integration of the different contributions and perspectives they provide.

To understand the development of the project management tools developed for ID projects, we traced the history of project-cycle management and its main tool, the logical framework, and explored the differences in the project management approaches of five main governmental development agencies from around the world. As we have shown, even if starting from the same roots (Baum’s PCM and the original logical framework from USAID), the standards 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 other countries not examined in our work and private organizations have done.

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.

As many authors (e.g., Ahlemann, Teuteberg, & Vogelsang, 2009; Mulder, 1997) have stressed, the usefulness of a common project management standard could be significant. In particular, this new standard could be useful if aimed at the integration with today’s project management tools and using terms that are consistent with project management professional standards (Couillard Garon, & Riznic, 2009). In our opinion, the evolution toward a new international standard for ID projects should be fostered, at least in terms of a general framework and shared terminologies. A leading role in this process could be played by international organizations and NGOs, also considering, and in some ways emulating, the ongoing discussion on the governance structures of donor organizations and aid effectiveness (Accra process, OECD, 2009).

The need for further efforts on international development project management and directions for further research have emerged also from our international survey. For the first time a specific questionnaire on the adoption of methods and tools has been administered to almost 500 ID project managers.

Thanks to this survey we have been able to highlight that the use and knowledge of methodologies is concentrated on PCM and very limited knowledge of other guidelines (PMBOK® Guide, IPMA, PRINCE2, etc.) can be found. This result is true for both high and low performers, suggesting that standard methodologies are not a prerequisite for superior performance, as could have been expected. Furthermore, we have highlighted that NGOs are more likely to adopt simple techniques rather than focusing their attention on more structured and analytical methodologies. However, in this case high performers tend to adopt more all the considered tools (including WBS, RAM, etc.) compared to low performers.

Interestingly, many of the day-by-day challenges faced by ID projects (e.g., difficult contexts, cultural clashes, long-term and implicit objectives, many stakeholders) correspond to the new challenges of business-to-business projects. Because of this, our results could be considered relevant not only for those working on development projects, but also for project managers in general and especially for those facing growing complexity in terms of stakeholder management, leadership, and project management in different cultural contexts.

To conclude we agree with what John Cropper has argued for - holding a project management summit of NGOs in 2009 - and we extend his remark to all organizations working in international development: the sector has to make a choice, it is at a crossroads. It can stay as it is and deal with the consequences of loss of resources, loss of reputation, and risk. It can stay as it is, while other types of organizations, including, in particular, private sector contracting firms, compete for and win humanitarian contracts and increasingly play a role in supporting developing countries. Or it can change and learn what is widely established in other sectors: that project management is vital for effective delivery, and is a prerequisite to start collaborating with other organizations, and professional ones in particular.

We think that scholars and professional project managers of other sectors can significantly contribute to the diffusion of project management standards and to the development of specific tools for international development projects. But above all, we believe that a change is needed in the international development organizations and in NGOs in particular. We hope that in the near future there will be a shared acknowledgment of the role and importance of project management and project managers in this sector. We hope that project managers will have appropriate skills, professional development programs, and sets of guidelines and standards. We hope there will be project management offices or equivalent structures to manage project portfolios and programs and to ensure consistency and to support project managers.

References

Ahlemann, F., Teuteberg, F., & Vogelsang, K. (2009). Project management standards—Diffusion and application in Germany and Switzerland. International Journal of Project Management, 27, 292–303.

Baum, W.C. (1970). The project cycle. Finance and Development, 7, 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.

Couillard, J., Garon, S., & Riznic, J. (2009). The logical framework approach–Millennium. Project Management Journal, 40, 31–44.

Diallo, A., & Thuillier, D. (2005). The success of international development projects, trust and communication: An African perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 23, 237–252.

Mulder, L. (1997). The importance of a common project management method in the corporate environment. R&D Management, 27, 189–196.

OECD (2009). Development co-operation report 2009.