Project management standards of governmental development agencies

Introduction

International Development Cooperation

International Development Cooperation provides various types of assistance to poor and less-developed countries to foster their long-term social and economic development in order to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, to achieve universal primary education, to reduce child mortality and improve health, to promote gender equality and to ensure environmental sustainability. Every year, International Cooperation provides relevant aid to developing countries. In 2008 total net official development assistance (ODA) from members of the OECD's Development Assistance Committee (DAC) amounted to USD 121.483,22 million (OECD, 2009). Besides government funding there also many private foundations and non governmental organizations that deliver aid pursuing the same objectives.

International Development Projects

According to Diallo and Thuillier (2005), most international assistance is provided via projects. As Youker (2003) suggests, “these projects are different from other types of projects for many reasons and the approach to implementation must also be different” from standard project management approaches embodied in the knowledge and practice guides of professional institutions. First of all, ID projects involve a large number of different stakeholders (e.g., donor agencies, government organizations, civil society, and local beneficiaries), and these actors usually have different perspectives due to national values and culture (e.g., a different concept of time). Secondly, these projects are peculiar due to their social and non-profit nature and “the intangibility of the developmental results” (Khang & Moe, 2008). Finally, project environments in developing countries are often difficult due to poor infrastructure and a lack of resources, which add to the complexity of these projects.

Background: history of project cycle management and logical framework

Project Cycle Management (PCM) is a term used to describe management activities and decision-making procedures used to manage ID projects. Its origin is based on the concepts of “project cycle” and “Logical Framework”.

Project cycle: description, origin and development

In general terms, the “life cycle” 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).

The Project Cycle's origin, in the context of ID projects, dates back to 1970, when W.C. Baum outlined five phases in the life of a project and organized them into a cycle (Baum, 1970). Eight years later, he introduced evaluation to the sequence (Cracknell, 2000, p.95) and finally outlined six progressive phases (fig.1): Identification, Preparation, Appraisal, Negotiation, Implementation & Supervision and Evaluation (Baum, 1978). These steps aimed to provide a well-defined structure and direction to a project's activities and keep the focus of attention on development objectives and issues (Exhibit 1).

Exhibit 1 – Baum's Project Cycle (Baum, 1978)

Since that time, the project cycle was used to manage and evaluate ID projects and, for this reason, the Project Cycle Management Framework “has become a standard practice for development agencies to organize their activities” (Biggs & Smith, 2003).

Logical Framework: description, origin and development

According to Biggs and Smith, different tools have so far been developed inside the PCM framework, but the most widely known and used tool is the Logical Framework (LF or logframe). LF is a 4x4 matrix that summarizes the project's goals, activities, assumptions, indicators, and sources of verification in order to measure and report the achievement of objectives (Coleman, 1987; Gasper, 2000). The Logical Framework in the context of ID projects originated in 1969 from Fry Associates and Practical Concepts, Inc. (Solem, 1987), two America-based consulting firms, at the request of United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (Exhibit 2).

Exhibit 2 – USAID's original Logical Framework (Solem, 1987)

A few years later some agencies and organizations – such as the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and most of United Nations development agencies- adopted the Logical Framework introducing small differences (e.g. different headings of the rows and the columns or one more row “Activities”). In 1983 the German aid agency GTZ modified LF approach creating an extended version, the Ziel Orientierte Projekt Planung (ZOPP), that provides, through more participatory planning, a systematic process to draw the matrix. Since that other development organizations showed interest in the ZOPP approach and incorporated it into their project planning and management procedures.

Management approaches adopted by five governmental agencies

In order to clarify which approaches exist to manage ID Projects, we studied the PCM standards adopted by five of the main governmental international development agencies in the world: AusAID (Australian Agency for International Development), CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency), EC (European Commission), JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency), and USAID (United States Agency for International Development).

Framework of analysis

The analysis is limited to governmental agencies and based on official documents and guidelines, in order to make the comparison uniform.

The five government standards are analysed within a four-dimensional framework, worked out considering the characteristics of ID projects, governmental agencies approaches and literature on project management.

The four dimensions are:

1. Project cycle: role and description of the project life cycle and its phases;
2. Logical Framework: role and description of the Logframe, if adopted;
3. Organization and Participation aspects: project team, roles and responsibility, relations with beneficiaries and the project steering committee; level of involvement of stakeholders during the lifecycle of the project;
4. Tools and techniques of project management: standard and advanced tools and techniques of Project Management (e.g., Work Breakdown Structure, Responsibility Assignment Matrix, etc.);

AusAID (Australian Agency for International Development)

The Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) delivers government aid through a number of packages of initiatives (typically called “development activities” or just “activities”) implemented in developing countries under a clear programme strategy.

Project cycle: AusAID's guidelines do not explicitly mention a project cycle. However, it is possible to highlight it by considering the different sections into which AusAID guidelines (AusGuide) are divided. The resulting life cycle is organized into six phases: Planning, Identification and Assessment, Preparing activity designs, Appraisal and approval, Activity implementation, and Completion and evaluation (AusAID, 2005).

Logical Framework: The LF was introduced into AusAID project management procedures in the mid-1980s. Today it is considered an analytical, presentational, and management tool used throughout the project cycle at an activity design level (AusAID, 2005). It has five rows and four columns, the last row is at the discretion of project managers.

Organization and Participation: AusAid guidelines provide advices on the needs for the team-based approach at each stage of programme and activity management. Although the agency promotes participation of beneficiaries, stakeholders and partners there is no suggestions concerning which methods, procedures, tools and techniques should be used in order to achieve participation and sustainability of the initiatives, only a checklist and some tables are provided.

Tools and techniques: The AusGuide provides specific booklets with instructions on how to implement a project. Inside these specific sections detailed information to implement tools and techniques of project management – such as implementation, resources and cost schedule, the baseline, activity completion and evaluation report - are given in the form of narrative text and graphic format. Ausguide also provides an entire chapter about risk management with exhaustive instructions to implement it and, of course standard methods used to implement the Logical Framework are described. (AusAID, 2005, 3.3).

CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency)

The Canadian International Development Agency's business management practices are structured around three delivery models. Given the focus of this comparison on projects, the Directive Programming practice is analysed.

Project Cycle: the Directive Programming practice follows a project cycle with six steps: Initiation, Planning, Approval, Operationalization, Implementation and Closure while a further phase, Monitoring and Control, spans all steps in project life cycle.

Logical Framework: CIDA was the first agency that originally adopted LF in its standard format in 1974. During 1990s LF changed into a matrix consisting of three rows and four columns as a consequence of the adoption of a more result-oriented approach. With 2008 new policies, the agency introduced new tools: the Logic Model (LM), that replaced the LF, the Risk Register and the Performance Measurement Framework (PMF), that already existed, was reinforced.

The Logic Model is a depiction of the causal or logical relationships between activities, outputs, and the outcomes of a given initiative. The Performance Measurement Framework is a plan to systematically collect relevant data over the lifetime of an investment to assess and demonstrate progress made in achieving expected results. The Risk Register is a tool that lists the most important project risks, the results of their analysis and a summary of mitigation strategies.

Organization and Participation aspects: CIDA's guidelines provide, for each step of project life cycle, the assignments that the project team should perform, its composition, accountability and operations. In terms of participation, CIDA's guidelines promotes participation of local population, stakeholders and beneficiaries but there are no details on techniques that will ensure it.

Tools and techniques of project management: inside the guidelines a description of the main tools used to manage projects, (LM, PMF and Risk Register), and their contents is provided. On the contrary other tools such as Work Breakdown Structure, Budget and Schedule are briefly quoted without description, only an exhaustive chapter about Risk Management and Assessment was recently introduced.

EC (European Commission)

In 1992 the European Commission drafted a Project Cycle Management approach based on ZOPP as its primary set of project design and management instruments, in which Logical Framework is presented as the core tool.

Project Cycle: The European Commission's project lifecycle is composed of five phases: Programming, Identification, Formulation, Implementation, and Evaluation & Audit.

Logical Framework: The Logical Framework matrix adopted by the EC consists of a matrix with four columns and four rows, very similar to the original one.

Organization and Participation aspects: In project cycle management guidelines (EC, 2004), there are not specific sections on the project team and its composition. Suggestions are given regarding the relationship that the task manager should establish to ensure project success. The guidelines also provide, for each step of the project cycle, advices on which stakeholders to involve, the main tools available to manage every stage of the cycle, and the key documents that should be produced.

The European Commission emphasizes participation significantly, highlighting the main principles on which participatory approaches are based and suggesting behaviours that should be adopted.

Tools and techniques of project management: EC guidelines suggest tools and techniques to manage every phase of the project cycle, referring to proper sections where their descriptions are provided. These tools are widely well-known in project management: Gantt chart, Work Breakdown Structure, activity, cost and resource schedule.

European guidelines also have an exhaustive chapter dedicated to the Logical Framework approach, where all the techniques needed to implement it are described in details.

Regarding Risk Management, only an example of the Risk Management Matrix is given, without providing instructions about how to obtain it.

JICA (Japanese International Cooperation Agency)

The Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) introduced in 1994 Project Cycle Management as a standardized method for managing projects.

Project Cycle: JICA project cycle is the same as the ZOPP project cycle. It is organized into four phases: Identification, Design, Implementation, and Final Evaluation.

Logical Framework: JICA's Logical Framework is a 4x4 matrix called Project Design Matrix (PDM) similar to the ZOPP approach with some small differences: there is one cell for Pre-conditions below the Assumptions column to identify conditions necessary for project start; the Assumptions column aims to clarify the responsibilities of the recipient government; most indicators included in the second column are qualitative indicators, therefore, the measurement of effectiveness of corresponding objectives is not as accurate as possible.

Organization and Participation aspects: Documentation published by JICA does not provide information about organization of the project team or relationships between the team and stakeholders.

Because of its origin in ZOPP, Japanese Project Cycle Management (JPCM) gives great weight to participatory aspects by using the participatory workshop method with visualization techniques, emphasis on team building, and additional procedures in participation analysis.

Tools and techniques of project management: In JICA's guidelines, there is no advice on which methods, tools, and techniques should be used to manage cooperation projects.

USAID (United States Agency for International Development)

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is an independent federal government agency that provides economic, development, and humanitarian assistance around the world in support of the foreign policy goals of the United States.

Project Cycle: Project Cycle Management adopted by USAID is based on three phases: Planning, Achieving Results and Assessing and Learning.

Logical Framework: Despite Logical Framework originated in USAID in 1969, today its use in agency's procedures seems to be controversial. As a matter of fact LF was not included in official guidelines published in 2004, when two new frameworks - Results Framework (RF) and Performance Management Plan (PMP) – were developed to replace it. It has been introduced again in its original format since 2008 but as an optional tool that can complement the RF.

The RF 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 project objectives and intermediate results of the intervention.

Performance Management Plan (PMP) is a tool used to plan, manage and assess project progress that provides performance indicators with specific baseline and targets values, the sources of the data, the method, the costs and the schedule for their collection.

Organization and Participation aspects: USAID guidelines accurately define roles, responsibility and team organization aspects but they do not provide any specific tools or techniques to achieve these participation goals except for a booklet for participatory evaluation.

Tools and techniques of project management: although there are no detailed references to standard techniques of project management USAID provides exhaustive instructions on how to use and manage its core tools (RF and PMP). The agency also published booklets called “TIPS” that are supplemental references and provide advices and suggestions to USAID managers on how to plan and conduct performance monitoring and evaluation activities. Finally, mandatory reference gives details about risk assessment and management.

Comparison Summary

Comparison of the results

Project Cycle

The five agencies assign different importance to the concept of project cycle and adopt cycles that differ from each other, even though they all come from Baum's seminal work. The majority use five or six phases but with differences in their names and content. JICA works with a smaller number of phases (four), following the original ZOPP project cycle, while 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 have a phase exclusively concerning the financing of the intervention, only the EC explicitly highlights the financing decision in the process and stresses its importance.

Logical Framework

Significant differences have emerged concerning the adoption of Logical Framework in managing ID projects. The analysis shows that there are two main trends. AusAID, EC and JICA recognize LF as an essential tool to manage, communicate, and summarize the project (not only in the planning and implementation phase, but especially during monitoring and evaluation) and adopt it in its original format proposed by USAID in 1969 with little modifications. USAID and CIDA, on the contrary, have recently removed the LF from their guidelines introducing different and more detailed tools that have the same scope and are similar to LF: they summarize the objectives of the project, its critical assumptions, performance indicators and their sources of verification. Besides being similar to the Logframe in contents, these new tools are also similar to LF in being used not only as planning, management, monitoring, and evaluation framework but also as means of communication between project actors and instruments that support a coherent development of the intervention.

Organization and participation aspects

Organizational aspects are included in the guidelines examined but they are not always described in detail. Most of the agencies focus their attention to team composition, its roles, responsibilities and its relations with beneficiaries and planning committees.

In terms of participation, the comparison shows that all agencies promote participation but it points out that development agencies that adopted Logical Framework before it was set into PCM by GTZ give less attention to participatory planning compared to agencies that built their PCM based on the ZOPP approach.

Tools and techniques of project management

All agencies refer to common techniques of project management with some differences in deepening level, with the exception of JICA that doesn't provide information on this topic. Some of them suggest tools and techniques to manage every phase of the project cycle and provide their descriptions in proper sections of the guidelines. Others give exhaustive details only on its core tools but quotes well-known techniques such as Work Breakdown Structure or Budget and Schedule. It should be highlighted that only three of them have a thorough section about Risk Management and Assessment and that only USAID dedicates an entire chapter to budgeting and financing.

Evidence on the difficulties in using different standards

As the analysis shows, even if starting from the same roots (Baum's project cycle and LF from USAID), the standards now present differences and probably will diverge even more. Furthermore, other countries and international organizations (eg. FAO, UNIDO, etc.) have developed their own guidelines, broadening the scene. A survey carried out between Italian non governmental organizations showed that Project Cycle Management is the standard used to manage development projects. However, 88% of these NGOs use other PCM guidelines besides PCM EU, among which other international development agencies’ standards (16,03%), specific funding guidelines (58,78%) and also PMI Body of Knowledge (2,75%). Although 40% of them consider PCM EU guidelines similar to other PCM guidelines difficulties are evident: standards present differences in terminology and structure and it could be difficult for project managers to orient themselves among them and to communicate 'speaking the same language'. In particular, these difficulties are more relevant if they have to deal with different partners or if different funding agencies in multilateral projects strictly require to use their own standards.

Conclusions

Review of the key points of the study

International Development projects are different from other kinds of project and, as a consequence, they need a specific approach to be properly managed.

Today there are different standards of project management in the field of Development Cooperation. Although they come from the same origins, they currently present significant differences in particular regarding the use (not use) of the LF approach.

Discussion of the limits of the standards and of the opportunities for further developments

Even if starting from the same roots, ID project management standards now present differences and probably will diverge even more. As a consequence it could become difficult, especially in the future, for project personnel, project managers, stakeholders, and others to orient themselves within the different standards and terminologies (Couillard, Garon & Riznic, 2009). In our opinion, the possibility of evolution towards a new international standard for ID projects should be explored, also considering an integration with today's project management professional tools and terminology.