The “Management-Per-Result” Approach to International Development Project Design

Abstract

Results-based management (RBM) has proved to be a valuable tool for international development project management; however, there are some inconsistencies that limit the use of RBM at the design phase to manage for results. This article presents a “management-per-result” approach to reinforcing the project design function of RBM and illustrates its application to a real-life project. Shying away from a technocratic approach, it emphasizes a “quick-and-dirty” approach and proposes an updated version of the logical framework to include success criteria and factors and very rough estimates for both project costs and benefits for targeted project results for different types of projects (infrastructure development, “process” type of project, and so forth).

Keywords

management-per-result RBM logical framework project design international development

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahsan

, & Gurawan

(2010). Analysis of cost and schedule performance of international development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 68–78.

Binnendijk

(2000, February). Results based management in the development co-operation agencies: A review of experience. Background Report. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: Development Assistance Committee Working Party on Aid Evaluation (DAC-EV). Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/1/1886527.pdf

Bond

, & Hulme

(1999). Process approaches to development: Theory and Sri Lankan practice. World Development, 27(8), 1339–1358.

Carden

, & Egan

(2008). Does our literature support sectors newer to project management? The search for quality publications relevant to nontraditional industries. International Journal of Project Management, 39(3), 6–27.

Cracknell

B. E.

(1988). Evaluating development assistance: A review of the literature. Public Administration and Development, 8, 75–83.

Crawford

, & Bryce

(2003). Project monitoring and evaluation: A method for enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of aid project implementation. International Journal of Project Management, 21(1), 363–373.

Diallo

, & Thuillier

(2004). The success dimensions of international development projects: The perceptions of African project coordinators. International Journal of Project Management, 22(1), 19–31.

Diallo

, & Thuillier

(2005). The success of international development projects, trust and communication: An African perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 23(1), 237–252.

Dvir

, & Lechler

(2004). Plans are nothing, changing plans is everything: The impact of changes on project success. Research Policy, 33, 1–15.

10.

Dvir

, Raz

, & Shenhar

(2003). An empirical analysis of the relationship between project planning and project success. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 89–95.

11.

European Commission. (2007). Support to sector programs. Covering the three financing modalities: Sector budget support, pool funding and EC project procedures. Tools and Methods Series, Guidelines, No. 2. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/delivering-aid/sector-approach/documentseuropeaid_adm_guidelines_support_to_sector_prog_sep07_short_en.pdf

12.

Flint

(2003, March). Easier said than done A review of results-based management in multilateral development institutions. London: UK Department for International Development.

13.

Gasper

(1986). Programme appraisal and evaluation: The hiding hand and other stories. Public Administration and Development, 6, 467–474.

14.

Hirschman

A. O.

(1967). Development projects observed. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

15.

Hubbard

(2000). Practical assessment of project performance: The “potential impact” approach. Public Administration and Development, 20, 385–395.

16.

Hulme

(2007, December). The making of the millennium development goals: Human development meets results-based management in an imperfect world. Brooks World Poverty Institute (Working paper 16). Retrieved from http://www.bwpi.manchester.ac.uk/resources/Working-Papers/bwpi-wp-1607.pdf

17.

Hutton

, & Haller

(2004). Evaluation of the costs and benefits of water and sanitation improvements at the global level. World Health Organization. Water, Sanitation and Health. Protection of the Human Environment (WHO/SDE/WSH/04.04). Retrieved from http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/wsh0404.pdf

18.

Ika

L. A.

, Diallo

, & Thuillier

(2010). Project management in the international industry: The project coordinator's perspective. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 3(1), 61–93.

19.

Ika

L. A.

, & Hodgson

(2010, January). Towards a critical perspective in international development project management. Making Projects Critical 5. Bristol, UK: Bristol Business School.

20.

Ika

L. A.

, & Lytvynov

(2009). RBM: A shift to managing development project objectives. Journal of Global Business Administration, 1, 55–76.

21.

Joint Inspection Unit (JIU). (1999). Results-based budgeting: The experience of the United Nations System Organizations. JIU/REP/99/3. Retrieved from http://www.unjiu.org/data/reports/1999/en99_03.pdf

22.

Khang

D. B.

, & Moe

T. L.

(2008). Success criteria and factors for international development projects: A life-cycle-based framework. Project Management Journal, 39(1), 72–84.

23.

Minogue

, Polidano

, & Hulme

(1998). Beyond the new public management: Changing ideas and practices in governance. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

24.

Morgan

(1983). The project orthodoxy in development: Re-evaluating the cutting edge. Public Administration and Development, 3, 329–339.

25.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (1994). Performance management in government: Performance measurement and results-oriented management. PUMA Public Management Occasional Papers. No. 3. Paris: Author.

26.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2002a). Glossary of key terms in evaluation and results based management. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/document/8/0.3746.en_2649_34435_45600899_1_1_1_1,00.html

27.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2002b, November). Managing for development results and aid effectiveness (DAC Development Partnership Forum: Background Paper. DCD/DAC(2002)31). Paris: Author.

28.

Osborne

, & Gaebler

(1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

29.

Rondinelli

D. A.

(1983). Projects as instruments of development administration: A qualified defence and suggestions for improvement. Public Administration and Development, 3, 307–327.

30.

Roodman

(2006). Aid project proliferation and absorptive capacity (Working Paper 75). Washington, DC: Center for Global Development. Retrieved from http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/5673/

31.

Schacter

(1999, November). Results-based management and multilateral programming at CIDA: A discussion paper. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Canadian International Development Agency: Strategic Planning Division Policy Branch; Institute on Governance.

32.

Schick

(2007, July). Conceptual elements of results-based budgeting. Presentation slides. Presented at the II Subregional Workshop in the Caribbean, St. Michel, Barbados. Retrieved from http://www.iadb.org/document.cfm?id=1170796

33.

Smith

(1988). Improving the project identification process in agricultural development. Public Administration and Development, 8, 15–26.

34.

Smyth

H. J.

(2009). Projects and programmes: Diversity of management, diversity of aims and interests: Editorial. International Journal of Project Management, 27, 97–100.

35.

Söderlund

(2004). On the broadening scope of the research on projects: A review and a model for analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 22(1), 655–667.

36.

Suarez

, & Bradford

(1993). The economic impact of the cholera epidemic in Peru: An application of the cost-of-illness methodology (Water and Sanitation for Health Project: WASH Field Report No. 415). Retrieved from http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNABP618.pdf

37.

Tacconi

, & Tisdell

(1992). Rural development projects in LDCs: Appraisal, participation and sustainability. Public Administration and Development, 12, 267–278.

38.

Tanburn

(2008). The 2008 reader on private sector development: Measuring and reporting results (1st ed.). Torino, Italy: International Training Centre of the International Labour Organization.

39.

Themistocleous

, & Wearne

S. H.

(2000). Project management topic coverage in journals. International Journal of Project Management, 18(1), 7–11.

40.

United Nations (UN). (2009). Millennium development goals. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/environ.shtml

41.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2000, December). UNDP programming manual (Ch. 4 and Ch. 5). New York: Author.

42.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2007, December). Evaluation of results-based management at UNDP! New York: UNDP Evaluation Office.

43.

Watkins

(2009a). An introduction to cost benefit analysis. Retrieved from http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/cba.htm

44.

Watkins

(2009b). The relationship between private profitability and net social benefit. Retrieved from http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/cbaprofit.htm

45.

World Health Organization. (2008). The global burden of disease: 2004 update. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/2004_report_update/en/index.html

46.

World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), and Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC). (2000). Global water supply and sanitation assessment 2000 report. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/monitoring/globalassess/en/