PAPERS

The Management of International

Development Projects: Moving Toward
a Standard Approach or Differentiation?
Paolo Landoni, Politecnico di Milano, Department of Management, Economics and Industrial
Engineering, Milano, Italy
Benedetta Corti, Politecnico di Milano, Department of Management, Economics and
Industrial Engineering, Milano, Italy

ABSTRACT
International cooperation supplies international
aid to developing countries and emerging
economies, typically through projects; to manage these projects, a specific approach based
on the project cycle was introduced in 1970. In
recent decades, many development agencies
have adopted the project cycle, but they have
also changed it over time, and today agencies
work with different standards. In this article, the
history of project management systems in
international cooperation is reported, and the
approaches adopted by five of the main worldwide governmental development agencies are
compared. The analysis shows both the common aspects and differences in order to highlight limits and propose further research.
KEYWORDS: international development
and cooperation; managing international projects; project management procedures; managing the process life cycle; logical framework

Project Management Journal, Vol. 42, No. 3, 4561

2011 by the Project Management Institute
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/pmj.20231

INTRODUCTION

very year, international cooperation provides aid to developing countries. During 2008, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) members of the Development Assistant
Committee (DAC) alone contributed around US $510 million (OECD,

2008a).
According to Diallo and Thuillier (2005), most international assistance
provided by governmental or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) is
provided via projects. These international development (ID) projects aim to
improve living conditions in emerging countries by, for instance, enhancing
agricultural, health, or educational systems. Despite their importance, limited attention has been devoted in the literature to the peculiarities of ID projects and to the best practices, approaches, and techniques of management.
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 that are
embodied in the knowledge and practice guides of professional institutions.
ID projects involve a large number of different stakeholders (e.g., donor
agencies, government organizations, civil society, and local beneficiaries)
(Diallo & Thuillier, 2004), and these participants usually have different perspectives due to national values and culture (e.g., a different concept of time)
(Muriithi & Crawford, 2003). In addition to the complex relationship of the
stakeholders involved, these projects are peculiar due to their social and notfor-profit nature and the intangibility of the developmental results (Khang &
Moe, 2008). Moreover, 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.
Given these peculiarities, in 1970, Baum introduced a specific approach
for ID projects based on the project cycle (Baum, 1970). In recent decades,
this approach has been widely adopted by development agencies because it
offers a well-structured pattern of efficient techniques that allow people to
work together while bringing into focus the projects objectives. However, so
far, limited attention has been devoted to the standards used to manage ID
projects and to their differences and evolutions: Do development agencies
work with the same standard or use different ones? How significant are the
differences between them and how can they learn from each other?
In this article, in order to answer these questions, we compare the project management standards adopted by five of the main worldwide governmental agencies. The analysis is based on an original framework consisting
April 2011 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

45

PAPERS

The Management of International Development Projects

of four dimensions, which represent the
main elements of a project management
system in development cooperation.
The comparison shows the common
aspects and differences in the management of these projects in order to
highlight the limits of the adopted
methodologies and propose further
research.
The article is organized into four
parts. The first section presents the history of project cycle management (PCM)
and its core tool (logical framework). The
second section presents the framework
of analysis that guides the comparison
and the standards adopted by the five
agencies. The third section compares
these standards. The fourth section
draws the conclusions of the study.

Supervision
and
Evaluation

Identification

Implementation

Preparation

Negotiation

Appraisal

History of Project Cycle

Management Framework and
the Logical Framework
Project cycle management is a term
used to describe the management
activities and decision-making procedures used during the life cycle of an ID
project. 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 (Project Management Institute
[PMI], 2004). 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 cycles origin 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), arguing that each project
passes through a cycle that, with some
variations, is common to all. He finally
outlined six progressive phases (Figure 1):
46

Figure 1: Baums project cycle (adapted from Baum, 1978).

identification, preparation, appraisal,

negotiation, implementation and supervision, and evaluation (Baum, 1978).
These steps aimed to provide a welldefined structure and direction to a
projects activities and keep the focus of
attention on the development of objectives and issues.
Since that time, the project cycle has
been used to manage and evaluate ID
projects and, for this reason, the projectcycle management framework has
become a standard practice for development agencies to organize their activities (Biggs & Smith, 2003, p. 1743 ).
According to Biggs and Smith
(2003), 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 4 4 matrix that summarizes the projects goals, activities,
assumptions, indicators, and sources of
verification in order to measure and
report the achievement of objectives
(Coleman, 1987; Gasper, 2000). The

April 2011 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

logical framework in the context of ID

projects originated in 1969 from Fry
Associates and Practical Concepts,
Inc. (Solem, 1987), two US-based consulting firms, at the request of the
United States Agency for International
Development (USAID). USAID officially
adopted the logical framework in 1971
just for technical assistance projects,
and then, in 1974, the agency extended
the use of the logical framework to all
types of foreign assistance projects
(MacArthur, 1994).
A few years later, the Canadian
International Development Agency
(CIDA) was the first development agency
that adopted, with only small differences,
USAIDs logical framework (MacArthur,
1994). In 1985, the Department for
International Development (DFID), a UK
government department, introduced the
logical framework in managing ID projects, with differences in the headings
of the rows and the columns. In 1986, the
logical framework was adopted by
the Food and Agricultural Organization

(FAO), with the addition of one more row

called activities.
While the logical framework was
spreading throughout most of the
United Nations development agencies
(e.g., International Fund for Agricultural
Development, United Nations Development Programme), in 1983, the German
aid agency Gesellschaft fr Technische
Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), which was
commissioned by the Federal Ministry
for Economics Cooperation, modified
the logical framework approach by creating an extended version, the Ziel
Orientierte Projekt Planung (ZOPP) (GTZ,
1996, 1997). The ZOPP provides, through
more participatory planning, a more systematic, participatory, and complete
process to draw the matrix (Gasper, 1997;
International Fund for Agricultural
Development [IFAD], 2001; Nakabayashi,
2000). Having obtained good results for a
master plan, ZOPP became mandatory in
1986 for all of GTZs ID projects.
Many development organizations
showed interest in the ZOPP approach.
The Norwegian Agency for Development
Cooperation (NORAD) introduced it
without one column (means and sources
of verification) (NORAD, 1999). The
Danish International Development
Assistance (DANIDA; 1996), the Swedish
International Development Cooperation
Agency (SIDA; 1996), Asian Development Bank (ADB), and United Nations
Industrial Development Organization
(UNIDO) incorporated ZOPP into their
project planning and management procedures.
The European Commission (EC)
developed its own first version of project cycle management based on the
ZOPP approach in 1992. The EC produced the first PCM manual in 1993
(EC, 2004) and emphasized beneficiary
needs (Eggers, 1994). Since that year,
the guidelines have been updated several times as a result of user feedback.
In 1994, the Japan International
Cooperation Agency (JICA), which was
in charge of technical cooperation
schemes under the supervision of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, introduced

project cycle management as a standardized method for managing ID projects. The following year, JICA defined its
own logical framework called the project design matrix (PDM; Nakabayashi,
2000). The Japanese PCM and the logical framework were both based on the
ZOPP approach.
Today, there are many versions and
variations in the terminology, but the
logical framework is typically thought
of as a matrix that breaks down a project into its component parts in order to
facilitate management (Cracknell, 2000,
p. 107).

Approaches of the Main

Governmental International
Development Agencies
In order to clarify the approaches used
to manage ID projects and their origins
and evolution, we studied 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, Japan International
Cooperation Agency, and US Agency for
International Development.
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
are analyzed within a four-dimensional
framework:
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, and relations with
beneficiaries and the project steering
committee; level of involvement of
stakeholders during the life cycle
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.)
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, which 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 allows
us to verify if and how standard and
advanced tools and techniques of project management are considered in
managing ID projects.
In the following sections, the
approaches of the governmental international development agencies are
briefly described in terms of this analytical framework. More detailed information is provided in the corresponding
tables.
AusAID
The Australian Agency for International
Development is the Australian governmental agency responsible for managing

April 2011 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

47

PAPERS

The Management of International Development Projects

overseas aid programs. AusAID delivers
government aid through a number of
development programs. Most programs
consist of a package of initiatives (typically called development activities or
just activities) implemented in developing countries under a clear program
strategy involving all forms of aid and a
range of development partners.
Project Cycle
AusAIDs guidelines do not explicitly
mention a project cycle with a welldefined number of phases and relationships and a summarizing graphic
visualization. However, it is possible to
highlight the project cycle by considering the different sections into which
AusAID guidelines (AusGuide) are
divided. The resulting program 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 logical framework 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
used at the discretion of project managers.
Organization and Participation
The development and delivery of
Australian government aid are teambased. Members of internal teams work
closely and collaboratively with a wide
range of development partners (e.g.,
state and local government authorities,
public- and private-sector institutions,
NGOs, etc.). Specific advice on the need
for the team-based approach at each
stage of program and activity management is provided in the AusAID guidelines.
In different sections of the guidelines, AusAID promotes the participation of beneficiaries, stakeholders, and

48

partners, but there is no advice or suggestions concerning which methods,

procedures, tools, and techniques
should be used. Only a checklist and
some simple tables are provided in the
guidelines to promote actors involvement and participation in order to
achieve sustainability of the initiative.
Tools and Techniques
The AusGuide provides specific booklets with instructions on how to implement a project. Inside these specific
sections, detailed information to
implement the tools and techniques of
project management is given in the
forms of narrative text and a graphic
format. For example, implementation,
resources, and cost-schedule procedures are described and an example of
the resulting planning table is given;
the baseline study is discussed in
depth, also providing links to other
Internet pages where more information is available (among these, the
USAID website); the activity completion and evaluation reports are
described in detail; and a draft of the
final format is given. The AusGuide also
provides an entire chapter about risk
management with the detailed instructions needed to implement it.
In addition, the standard methods
used to implement the logical framework are described (AusAID, 2005).
More detailed information about
AusAIDs approach is provided in Table 1.
CIDA
The Canadian International Development Agency is Canadas leading agency
for development assistance. CIDAs
business management practices are
structured around three delivery models. Given the focus of this comparison
on projects, the directive programming
practice is analyzed.
Project Cycle
The directive programming practice
follows a project cycle with six steps:
initiation, planning, approval, operationalization, implementation, and closure, whereas an additional phase,

April 2011 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

monitoring and control, spans all steps

in the project life cycle.
Logical Framework
The logical framework has been used in
CIDA since 1976. The agency originally
adopted the logical framework in its
standard format, but during the 1990s
a matrix consisting of three rows and
four columns (Canadian International
Development Agency [CIDA], 1997) was
drafted and published in the guidelines,
thanks to the adoption of a more
results-oriented approach (CIDA, 1999,
2000). In 2008, with the update of
results-based management (RBM) policies, the agency introduced new tools,
definitions, and methodologies that
respond to a need for better coherence
within CIDA. As a consequence, the
logic model (LM) replaced the logical
framework; the performance measurement framework (PMF), which already
existed, was reinforced; and the risk register was introduced for the first time.
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 (Canadian International Development Agency [CIDA],
2009a). The PMF documents the major
elements of the monitoring system and
ensures that performance information
is collected on a regular basis and it also
contains information on baseline, targets, and the responsibility for data collection (see Table 2).
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

Project Cycle

1. Planning
Consists of the development of activity options once an area of work under an AusAID program strategy is identified
2. Identification and assessment
Covers the selection of one or more options for formal assessment by AusAID (and other partners), at the end of which the decision to
proceed or not should be made
3. Preparing activity designs
Outlines the detailed design processes that should be adequately recorded in clear and readable activity documentation
4. Appraisal and approval
Covers the assessment process that is required to be undertaken for AusAID activities prior to approving their implementation
5. Activity implementation
Seeks to deliver the agreed-upon outputs and planned development results of the activity design to meet the objectives of both the
Australian government and relevant development partners
6. Completion and evaluation
Provides a balanced assessment of activity performance against design objectives at the time when Australian-funded inputs
cease; formalizes the transfer of Australian activity assets to the partner government; and provides
a systematic and objective assessment of the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, and sustainability of development
activities

Logical
Framework

Project Description

Performance Indicators

Means of Verification

Assumptions

Goal/Impact

Long-term development
impact on a national or
sector-based level

Purpose/
Outcome

What the activity itself is

expected to achieve in
terms of sustainable
development results

Measure of progress that

should provide, where
possible, a clearly defined
unit of measurement and a
target detailing the quantity,
quality, and timing of
expected results

Sources of information,
how they will be collected
(method), who will be
responsible, and the
frequency with which
the information should
be provided

Assumptions made
about conditions
that could affect the
progress or success
of the activity, but
over which activity
managers may have
no direct control

Objectives or
Intermediate
Results

Link between outputs

and outcomes

Outputs

Tangible products or
services that the activity
will deliver

Work Program

Tasks to be undertaken
as part of the planned
delivery of the activity to
achieve the required
outputs

Organization
and
Participation
Aspects

Standard participants in the development and implementation of both AusAID program strategies and development activities
include the internal AusAID team, Australian government agencies (as appropriate), and other development partners, particularly
partner government authorities. Private-sector consultants are often used for expert input.
Stakeholders, both men and women, should actively participate by having the opportunity to influence the direction and details of
design and implementation. Allocating adequate time and resources for participatory analysis and responding to demand-led
approaches are important ways to improve participation.

Tools and
Techniques
of Project
Management

Description of techniques used to draw up the logical framework (e.g., tree analysis, stakeholder analysis matrix, SWOT [strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats] analysis, Venn diagrams, spider diagrams, and flow charts; quotation of the common
techniques of project and risk management as the Gantt chart, baselines, activity, resource, and cost schedule).

Table 1: AusAID summary table.

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.

Organization and Participation Aspects

During the initiation phase, a project
team is formed and assigned responsibility for the potential project in order
to develop worthwhile ideas. CIDAs

Business Process RoadMap Overview

(Canadian International Development
Agency [CIDA], 2009b) provides, for
each step of the project life cycle,
assignments that the team should

April 2011 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

49

PAPERS

The Management of International Development Projects

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

Data
Sources

Target
Particular
value for
an indicator
to be
accomplished
by a specific
date in the
future

Individuals,
organizations,
or document
from which
data about
indicators will
be obtained

DataCollection
Method

Frequency

Responsibility

How data is
How often the Who is responsible
collected,
information are for collecting and/or
depending on collected
validating the data
the type of
indicator, the
purpose of
the information
being gathered,
and the
frequency of
collection

Table 2: Performance measurement framework (CIDA, 2009b).

perform and introduces a new chapter

(Chapter 11) about using project
teams in project design and implementation, in which team composition, accountability, and operations
are explained.
In terms of participation, CIDAs
guidelines promote the participation of
the local population, stakeholders, and
beneficiaries, but there are no details
on the techniques that will ensure it.
However, in CIDAs project management strategy, a CIDA key supporting
document, the mechanisms that will be
put in place to ensure the full participation of all stakeholders, especially beneficiaries of the initiative, have to be
detailed. This request aims to clarify
how the sustainability of outcomes is
reached by the agency.
Tools and Techniques of Project
Management
In CIDAs Business Process RoadMap
(CIDA, 2009b), the agency introduced
an annex titled Guidelines for Project
File Documentation in which all the
types of documents that must be
retained in relation to a CIDA project
are listed.
Inside the guidelines, a description of the main tools used to manage
projects (logic model, performance
measurement framework, and risk
register), and their contents are provided. On the contrary, other tools
50

such as work breakdown structure,

budget, and schedule are briefly quoted
without description.
Regarding risk management and
assessment, CIDA recently introduced
an extensive chapter about it (Chapter 6
in CIDA, 2009b).
More detailed information about
CIDAs approach is provided in Table 3.
EC
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 the logical
framework is presented as the core tool.
The first manual was produced in 1993
and was subsequently updated.
Project Cycle
The European Commissions project life
cycle is composed of five phases: programming, identification, formulation,
implementation, and evaluation and
audit.
Logical Framework
The European Commission began to
use the logical framework as a part of its
project cycle management system in
1993. The logical framework matrix
adopted by the EC consists of a matrix
with four columns and four rows.
Organization and Participation Aspects
In the project cycle management

April 2011 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

guidelines (EC, 2004), there are no specific sections on the project team and
its composition. Suggestions are given
regarding the relationship that the task
manager, who is responsible for the
project, should establish to ensure project success. The guidelines provide, for
each step of the project cycle, advice 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 behaviors that should be
adopted.
Tools and Techniques of Project
Management
ECs guidelines suggest tools and techniques to manage every phase of the
project cycle, referring to specific sections where their descriptions are provided. These tools are widely known in
project management: the Gantt chart,
work breakdown structure, activity,
cost, and resource schedule.
The European guidelines also have
an exhaustive chapter dedicated to
the logical framework approach, in
which all the techniques needed to
implement it (stakeholder analysis,
problem analysis, etc.) are described
in detail.

Project Cycle

1. Initiation
Consists of project identification, in which potential ideas are gathered or identified, and screening, in which the most promising
interventions are determined. It also includes the establishment of the project team and the development of a preliminary logic
model, environmental analysis, preliminary project cost and schedule development, and the preparation of the concept paper.
2. Planning
Includes three steps: appraisal, which examines why CIDA should invest in a particular initiative and what the initiative should
accomplish; feasibility, which examines whether an initiative can be undertaken and includes an examination of viability and
sustainability; and design, which examines the best way to structure an initiative.
3. Approval
Examines why CIDA should invest in a particular initiative and what the initiative should accomplish. It is composed of a series of
analyses that provide the information required to make an informed decision.
4. Operationalization
Follows final approval and is concerned with setting any necessary arrangements with the recipient country and with contracting
resources for implementation, monitoring, and other performance assessments.
5. Implementation
Is undertaken by an implementing organization under contract with CIDA that supervises it, through the management of contracts
and other project agreements, the use of consultative processes (such as project steering committees), risk assessment and
management, performance and other reporting, monitoring, and audits and evaluations as necessary.
6. Closure
Ensures that CIDAs financial and contractual involvement in the project is concluded and that outstanding issues are addressed.
It also affords CIDA an opportunity to review project performance and results and identify key lessons.
Monitoring and Control
Monitoring and control requirements are defined. CIDA will utilize performance information related to progress toward the achievements of the agreed-upon project objectives to prepare performance reports and improve the implementation of the project. This
step spans all project cycle phases.

Logical
Framework

Logic Model
Ultimate
Outcome

The highest-level change that is the consequence of one or more intermediate outcomes and takes the form of a
sustainable change of state among the beneficiaries.

Intermediate
Outcomes

A change that is expected to logically occur once one or more immediate outcomes have been achieved. These are
medium-term and are usually achieved by the end of the initiative and constitute a change in behavior or practice
among the beneficiaries.

Immediate
Outcomes

A change that is directly attributable to the outputs of an organization, policy, program, or initiative. These are
usually short-term and represent a change in skills, awareness, access, or ability among the beneficiaries.

Outputs

Direct products or services stemming from the activities of an organization, policy, program, or initiative.

Activities

Actions taken or work performed through which inputs are mobilized to produce outputs.

Inputs

The financial, human, material, and information resources used to produce outputs through activities and
to accomplish outcomes.

Organization
and
Participation
Aspects

Although there is no set composition of a project team, it is usually built around a defined group of skills and clearly defined roles
and accountabilities. The CIDA team is led by a project team leader who is accountable for managing CIDAs involvement in an
initiative, from identification through closure. It includes a group of thematic, sectoral, institutional, geographical, financial, and
contracting specialists who provide the team leader with the necessary subject matter expertise. The composition of a team and
the degree of participation of each team member will vary over time, depending on where the initiative is in the life cycle and the
specific issues under consideration.
In project management strategy, all mechanisms and techniques used to ensure participation of all stakeholders should be
accurately reported.

Tools and
Techniques of
Project
Management

All project documents that must be provided are listed in Annex A of the latest updated version of the CIDA Business Process Road
Map (CIDA, 2009b). Among these there are the outputs of standard techniques (e.g., WBS, organization chart, logical framework,
or its successors: the LM, PMF. . .), well-known documents such as Project Budget and Schedule, Roles and Responsibility, Project
Implementation plan, Work Plans, etc., that dont refer to a standard technique of project management and specific documents
implemented by the Canadian agency (e.g., Risk Registry, Project Management Strategy, etc.).

Table 3: CIDA summary table.

April 2011 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

51

PAPERS

The Management of International Development Projects

Project Cycle

1. Programming
Leads to identification of key stakeholders and assessment of their needs, interests, and capacities; identification and analysis of
priority development problems/constraints and opportunities; and definition of development objectives, which address the identified priority problems and describe a strategy for EC development assistance, which takes account of the proceeding analysis,
including capacity constraints, lessons learned from previous experience, and the ongoing or planned activities of other donors.
2. Identification
Aims to identify project ideas that are consistent with partner and EC development priorities, to assess their relevance and feasibility, and to prepare a financing proposal for each.
3. Formulation
Confirms the relevance and feasibility of the project idea (including the management and coordination arrangements, financing
plan, cost-benefit analysis, risk management, monitoring, evaluation, and audit arrangements), prepares a detailed project design,
and formulates a financing proposal (if not previously done) and a financing decision.
4. Implementation
Aims to deliver results, achieve purposes, contribute effectively to the overall objective of the project, manage the available
resources efficiently, and monitor and report on progress.
5. Evaluation and Audit
Systematically and objectively assesses the ongoing (and then completed) project to determine the fulfillment of objectives and
developmental efficiency, effectiveness, impact, and sustainability. During audits, the legality and regularity of project expenditures and income are also assessed. Evaluation criteria used by the European Commission are closely linked to the logframe.

Logical
Framework

Project Description
Overall
Objective

Projects contribution
to policy or program
objectives

Purpose

Direct benefits to target

groups

Results

Tangible products or
services delivered by
the project

Activities

Tasks that have to be

undertaken to deliver
the desired results

Indicators

Sources of Verifications

Measurable indicators that

will show whether or not
objectives have been
achieved at the three
highest levels of the
logframe

Indicate where and in

what form information
on the achievement of
the overall objective, the
project purpose(s), and
the results can be found;
they should include
summary details of the
method of collection,
who is responsible, and
how often the information
should be collected and
reported

Assumptions
External factors,
which could affect the
progress or success of
the project but over
which the project
manager has no direct
control. They are
formulated in a
positive way.

Organization
and
Participation
Aspects

Teamwork, negotiation, and communication skills are central to effective PCM. Although there isnt any specific section about the
project team inside the guidelines, relationships that the task manager should establish are defined: he or she should actually deal
with civil society groups in partner countries, partner government officials, consultants, general public, European Parliament, EC
colleagues, and other donors.
EC promotes the ownership of development processes by the target population to ensure conditions of equity through participation of civil society, harmonization of donor procedures, and capacity building. The guidelines suggest some behavior that should
be adopted: sharing ideas and information; facilitating local people to undertake their own analysis; reversing the traditional roles
of outside experts; and self-critical awareness by facilitators. Advice on workshop preparation is also provided.

Tools and
Techniques
of Project
Management

The guidelines suggest a set of tools and techniques that includes methods that are widely known: economic and financial analysis
in the identification phase and SWOT analysis, risk management analysis, and activity and resource scheduling in the identification
and formulation stages. Activity and resource scheduling is obtained through the combination of three different standard
techniques of project management: work breakdown structure, responsibility assignment matrix, and the Gantt chart. To support
the evaluation and audit stage, only evaluation and audit criteria are provided.

Table 4: EC summary table.

Regarding risk management, only

one example of the risk management
matrix is given, without providing
instructions on how to obtain it.
More
detailed
information
about ECs approach is provided in
Table 4.
52

JICA
The Japan International Cooperation
Agency is the implementation agency
for technical cooperation in Japans
official development assistance (Japan
International Cooperation Agency
[JICA], 2007) and it introduced project-

April 2011 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

cycle management in 1994, following

the ZOPP approach (Nakabayashi,
2000).
Project Cycle
As Nakabayashi reports, the 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 adopted a logical framework with
a format similar to the ZOPP approach:
a 4 4 matrix called project design
matrix (PDM). However, there are some
differences (Nakabayashi, 2000): JICA
adds one cell for preconditions, below
the assumptions column, to identify
conditions necessary for the projects
start; the assumptions column aims to
clarify the responsibilities of the recipient government; and most indicators
included in the second column are

Project Cycle

and additional procedures in participation analysis ( Japan International

Cooperation Agency [JICA], 2001).

qualitative indicators; therefore, the

measurement of effectiveness of corresponding objectives is not as accurate
as possible.

Tools and Techniques of Project

Management
In the JICA guidelines, there is no
advice on which methods, tools, and
techniques should be used to manage
cooperation projects.
More detailed information about
JICAs approach is provided in Table 5.

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,

USAID
The U.S. Agency for International
Development is an independent federal government agency that provides

1. Identification
Includes situation analysis, participant analysis, and problem and potential analysis
2. Design
Includes target group analysis and project design
3. Implementation
Aims to define plans for operations and project progress review
4. Final Evaluation
Assesses, as systematically and objectively as possible, the ongoing or completed project, and its design, implementation, and
results

Logical
Framework

Project Summary

Indices

Overall Goal

Indirect and long-term

impact defined at the
project planning stage

Project
Purposes

Target expected to be
achieved by the
completion of a project

Outputs

Services and results

produced by the
implementation of a
project

Quantitative or qualitative
variable that provides a
simple and reliable means
to measure achievement
of or a change made by a
project; the initially targeted
value of each indicator
should be included

Activities

What should be carried

out to achieve the output
of a project

Means of Obtaining
Index Data
Information sources
and survey methods
used to measure the
achievement of a
project

Assumptions
Requirements that
must be satisfied
before implementing
a project

Preconditions
Prerequisite
conditions that must
be met before the
beginning of the
project

Organization
and
Participation
Aspects

Although the management of the JICA development project is team-based, the guidelines dont provide any specific information
about composition, tasks, and the relationship that the team should establish.
As a basic philosophy of aid, JICA has long stressed the importance of developing countries own initiatives and their active participation in planning and implementing projects. Various efforts for incorporation of a participatory approach have been made, including
the adoption of JPCM (originated on the base of ZOPP approach), in order to promote ownership and empowerment and improve
project efficacy.

Tools and
Techniques
of Project
Management

JICA guidelines dont provide or suggest any specific project management tool or technique that should be used to lead
development activities.

Table 5: JICA summary table.

April 2011 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

53

PAPERS

The Management of International Development Projects

Assistance Objective: Economic Competitiveness of Private Enterprises

Improved

IR 1: Enabling Environment for Enterprises

Improved

IR 1.1
Licensing and
registration
requirements
for enterprises
streamlined

IR 1.2
Commercial
laws that
support
marketoriented
transactions
promoted

IR 1.3
Regulatory
environment
for micro and
small
enterprises
improved

IR 2: Private Sector Capacity

Strengthened

IR 2.1
Competitiveness
of targeted
enterprises
improveda

IR 2.2
Productivity
of microenterprises
in targeted
geographic
regions
increased

IR 2.3
Information
Exchange
Improved

Critical Assumptions:
Key political leaders, including the President and the Minister of Trade and
Labor, will continue to support policy reforms that advance private enterprise-led growth.
Government will sign the Libonia Free Trade Agreement, which will open up
opportunities for enterprises targeted under IR 2.1.

Figure 2: USAID results framework example (USAID, 2009a).

economic, developmental, 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
Although the logical framework originated in USAID in 1969, today, its use in
the agencys procedures seems to be
controversial. As a matter of fact, the
logical framework was not included
in the official guidelines published in
2004, when two new frameworksthe
results framework (RF) and the performance management plan (PMP)
were developed to replace it. It has been
introduced again in its original format
since 2008 but, despite its reintroduction, it is now considered as an optional
tool for project activity planning rather
54

than a core and mandatory framework

(US Agency for International Development [USAID], 2008, p. 3).
As the USAID guidelines explain
(USAID, 2009a), the logical framework
is a project design tool that complements the results framework by
showing how operational details of a
proposed project combine to achieve
specific parts of the results framework.
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

April 2011 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

format, but generally, it has a graphic

form that is structured on different levels, followed by a narrative summary
(see Figure 2).
The results framework and logical
framework should be seen as synergistic tools, because the results framework
presents all of the results of an intervention, including those achieved by
others (such as the host government,
civil society, and other donors), whereas the activities defined by the logframe
help to achieve important necessary
outputs that are often not sufficient to
achieve the highest-level results of an
intervention.
In planning a new intervention,
there is another mandatory tool to be
used with the results framework: the
performance
management
plan,
referred to as the performance monitoring plan up until 2001.
PMP 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.
Organization and Participation Aspects
USAIDs organization emphasizes
teamwork (US Agency for International
Development [USAID], 2004) but also
highlights that team structure is not
always the most effective means of
achieving objectives: it is the managers
responsibility to determine the best
structure (US Agency for International
Development [USAID], 2006). The
roles, responsibility, and team organization are accurately defined.
USAID tries to involve customers,
partners, and stakeholders in joint
planning in order to improve the quality of decisions and to ensure the support needed to succeed. However,
USAID guidelines 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
Inside the guidelines, although there
are no detailed references to the
standard techniques of project management, USAID provides detailed
instructions on how to use and manage
its core tools (e.g., results framework
and performance management plan).
The agency also published booklets

called TIPS that are supplemental

references and provide advice and
suggestions to USAID managers on how
to plan and conduct performance monitoring and evaluation activities.
Finally, mandatory references provide
details about risk assessment and
management.
More detailed information about
USAIDs approach is provided in Table 6.

Comparison Summary
The project management standards
adopted by five governmental international development agencies have been
compared using our framework of four
dimensions in order to investigate the
commonalities and differences and to
highlight the peculiarities. In Table 7,
the main elements of each standard are
summarized. In the following sections,
the most significant differences are discussed.
Project Cycle
The five agencies adopt project cycles
that differ from each other, even though
they all come from Baums seminal
work on the subject. The majority of
agencies (EC, CIDA, and AusAID) use a
cycle with five or six phases, very similar to Baums, 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 USAIDs
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 Baums
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.
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: CIDA introduced PMF, risk register, and LM, which clearly replaces the
logical framework, whereas USAID uses
the results framework and PMP and
refers to the logical framework as an
optional framework. 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.

April 2011 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

55

PAPERS

The Management of International Development Projects

Project Cycle

1. Planning
Process that assists USAID in identifying appropriate results, suitable approaches to achieving objectives, the resources required,
and the means to measure the progress of the intervention. The planning stage consists of two parts: (1) strategic planning, in
which project goals, project objectives, and performance measures are defined and approved; and (2) activity planning, in which
specific outputs and the means for reaching goals are identified. Activity planning also includes the selection of the types of institutions that will produce the outputs. The planning phase is considered complete when: the development objective (assistance
objective, or AO) is precisely defined; a framework (results framework, or RF), including an implicit hypothesis, critical assumptions, descriptions, and cause-and-effect linkages between different levels of an assistance objective, is outlined; a team is
formed; performance indicators and targets are identified; and specific implementation activities are approved.
2. Achieving Results
Includes the following tasks: structuring assistance objective teams for activity implementation; mobilizing inputs; supporting
implementing partners to achieve results; monitoring quality and timeliness of key outputs; managing USAID program resources
and requesting funds; performing funds control, payment, and obligations management; managing vulnerability; and closing out
assistance objectives and obligating instruments.
3. Assessing and Learning
The project is assessed by verifying whether activities are actually achieving the intended results. This step is also important in
learning from the experience, capitalizing on lessons learned, and facilitating knowledge sharing between the agency and the
development community.

Logical
Framework

Narrative Summary

Objectively
Verifiable Indicators

Means of
Verification
Means of verification
used to ensure that each
level of the hierarchy
has been satisfactorily
accomplished

Important
Assumption

Project Goal

Usually related to the

highest-level result or
desired outcome of a
results framework,
which is the AO

Measures of goal
achievement

Affecting goal

Project
Purpose

Key result to be achieved

by the project; it generally
corresponds to one of the
intermediate results of
the results framework

Conditions that will indicate

that the purpose has been
achieved

Affecting purpose to
goal link

Outputs

Tangible, immediate, and

intended products or
consequences of an
activity within USAIDs
control

Performance standards for

the outputs necessary and
sufficient to achieve the
purpose

Affecting output to
purpose link

Inputs

Resources the project is

expected to consume in
order to produce outputs

Level of effort/expenditure
for each activity/resource

Affecting input to
output link

Organization
and
Participation
Aspects

Inside USAIDs guidelines, instructions are given on the types of teams that can be established (parallel, aligned, permanent, etc.),
their characteristics (results-orientated, multifunctionality, information sharing, etc.), and size range, which should be between
five and ten members (even if the number of participants is ultimately determined by the needs of the specific project). The roles
of team leaders, managers, and supervisors are defined in detail.
To ensure broad participation, project teams use different methods (e.g., evaluation methods), regularly scheduled consulting
groups, and rapid appraisal techniques, but none of these techniques is described in USAIDs guidelines.

Tools and
Techniques
of Project
Management

In the USAID guidelines, there arent references to the standard techniques of project management; only detailed information is
provided about its specific tools (e.g., RF, PMP . . .).
It should be noted that one chapter (ADS 600) is entirely dedicated to budgeting and financing.

Table 6: USAID summary table.

A deeper comparison shows that

both the results framework and LM
relate to the first column of the logical
framework (the narrative summary of
56

the project), with the exception that the

results framework also includes critical
assumptions (the fourth column of the
logical framework), whereas CIDA

April 2011 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

places them inside the risk register.

PMP and PMF are tools used to plan
and manage the monitoring process,
and both relate to the second and third

Project Cycle
AusAID

EC

1. Planning
2. Identification and
assessment
3. Preparing activity designs
4. Appraisal and approval
5. Activity implementation
6. Completion and evaluation

1. Programming
2. Identification
3. Formulation
4. Implementation
5. Evaluation and audit

Organization
and
Participation
Aspects

Logical Framework
Project Description

Performance
Indicators

Means of
Verifications

Assumptions

Goal
Purpose
Component
Objectives
Outputs
Work Program
Project Description

Indicators

Sources of
Verifications

Assumptions

Overall Objectives
Purpose
Results
Activities

JICA

1. Identification phase
2. Design phase
3. Implementation phase
4. Final evaluation phase

Project Summary

Indices

Means of
Obtaining
Index Data

1. Initiation
2. Planning
3. Approval
4. Operationalization
5. Implementation
6. Closure
7. Monitoring and Control

Overall Goal
Project Purposes
Outputs
Activities

Logic Model (LM)

Ultimate Outcome
Intermediate
Outcomes

Performance
Measurement
Framework
(PMF)

Risk
Register

Immediate
Outcomes

Activities
Inputs
1. Planning
2. Achieving results
3. Assessing and learning

Results Framework Performance

(RF)
Management
Plan (PMP)
AO

IR 1

IR 2

Critical
Assumptions

Exhaustive
details
provided

Participation:
promoted;
lack of tools
and techniques
to implement it

LF approach
explained

Organization:
relationship
between task
manager and
stakeholder
key roles and
responsibilities

Exhaustive
details
provided

Participation:
stressed;
behavior and
suggestions
to implement it

LF approach
explained

Organization:
not included

Details not
provided

Participation:
stressed;
suggestions on
implementing
workshop and
visualization
techniques

LF approach
not explained

Organization:
project team
composition,
accountability,
and operations
are described

Details
provided
LF approach
not included

Participation:
promoted;
lack of tools
and techniques
to implement it

Outputs

USAID

Organization:
roles and
relationships
are explained

Assumptions

Precondition
CIDA

Tools and
Techniques
of Project
Management

IR 3

Optional LF

Organization:
Details
information on
provided
types, characteristics,and size of
teams; roles and
responsibilities
identified
Participation:
promoted;
lack of tools
and techniques
to implement it

LF approach
not explained

Table 7: Comparison summary.

April 2011 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

57

PAPERS

The Management of International Development Projects

columns of the logical framework (performance indicators and mean of verification). In addition, PMP contains
supplementary information regarding
data limitations, quality assessment,
financing procedures, and operational
costs.
In addition to being similar to the
logframe 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.
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 its composition, its
roles and responsibilities, its relations
with beneficiaries and planning committees and also about administrative
and operational aspects that involve
participants. EC guidelines dont provide any specific section about the
project team, but they describe the task
managers 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
58

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.
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 in deepening the
level, with the exception of JICA, which
doesnt 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.

April 2011 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

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.

Conclusions
In this article, 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 the analysis
shows, even if starting from the same
roots (Baums PCM and the original logical framework from USAID), the standards now present differences and
probably will diverge even more.
Furthermore, international organizations (e.g., FAO, UNIDO, etc.) have
developed their own standards, as have
other countries not examined in this
article (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. On
the other hand, as many authors have
stressed (e.g., Ahlemann, Teuteberg, &
Vogesland, 2009; Mulder, 1997), the usefulness of a common project management standard could be significant. In
particular, this new standard could be
useful if aimed at integration with
todays project management tools and
using terms that are consistent with
project management professional standards (Couillard, Garon, & Riznic, 2009).

In this respect, an interesting development has been introduced by the Project

Management for Non-Governmental
Organizations (Pm4ngos) initiative, a
group of international relief, development, and conservation organizations
that work together to optimize international nongovernmental project investments by enabling project managers to
be professional practitioners. In order
to achieve this goal, Pm4ngos recently
published the first PMD Pro guide
(Pm4ngos Working Group, 2010) to train
volunteers and professionals in international development project management methodologies.
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
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, 2008b).
In particular, further research to
evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the different standards and
approaches should be performed. In
this sense, an interesting example is the
contribution of Biggs and Smith (2003)
that highlights the limits of PCM and
raises awareness about the importance
of organizational culture (and personal
agency) approaches in this context.
Other indications can emerge from the
results of the comparison developed in
this workfor instance, the limited
focus on tools and techniques of project management and on organizational
and participatory aspects; the new
instruments developed by USAID and
CIDA; and the more results-oriented
approaches adopted by some agencies.
The literature has devoted limited
attention to ID projects, despite their
importance in development cooperation and their uniqueness compared
with other projects. In the future, further research on these topics would be

useful in order to promote development cooperation and to make it more

efficient and effective.

References
Ahlemann, F., Teuteberg, F., &
Vogesland, K., (2009). Project management standards: Diffusion and application in Germany and Switzerland.
International Journal of Project
Management, 27, 292303.
Australian Agency for International
Development (AusAID). (2005).
AusGUIDElines 3.3The logical framework approach. Retrieved from
http://www.ausaid.gov.au/ausguide
/pdf/ausguideline3.3.pdf
Baum, W. C. (1970). The project cycle.
Finance and Development, 7(2), 213.
Baum, W. C. (1978). The World Bank
project cycle. Finance and
Development, 15(4), 1018.
Biggs, S., & Smith, S. (2003). A paradox
of learning in project cycle management. World Development, 31,
17431757.
Canadian International Development
Agency (CIDA). (1997). The logical
framework approach: Making it results
oriented. Retrieved from http://www
.cida-ecco.org/CIDARoadMap
/RoadMapEnvoy/documents/LFA%20
%20Making%20it%20Results%20Orient
ed.pdf
Canadian International Development
Agency (CIDA). (1999). Results based
management in Canadian
International Development Agency.
Gatineau, QC, Canada: Author.
Canadian International Development
Agency (CIDA). (2000). RBM handbook
on developing results chains. Gatineau,
QC, Canada: Author.
Canadian International Development
Agency (CIDA). (2009a). CIDAs business process roadmapOverview, ver.
3.4. Gatineau, QC, Canada: Author.
Canadian International Development
Agency (CIDA). (2009b). CIDAs business process roadmapOverview, ver.
4.0. Retrieved from http://www
.reliefweb.int/rw/lib.nsf/db900sid/SNA

A-7RZ7AE/$file/CIDA-Apr2009.pdf?
openelement
Coleman, G. (1987). Logical framework
approach to the management and
evaluation of agricultural and rural
development projects. Project
Appraisal, 2, 251259.
Couillard, J., Garon, S., & Riznic, G.
(2009). The logical framework
approach millennium. Project
Management Journal, 40, 3144.
Cracknell, B. E. (2000). Evaluating
development aid: Issues, problems and
solutions. London: Sage.
Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs
(DANIDA). (1996). The logical framework approach: A flexible tool for participatory development. Copenhagen:
Author.
Diallo, A., & Thuillier, D. (2004). The
success dimensions of international
development projects: The perceptions
of African project coordinators.
International Journal of Project
Management, 22, 1931.
Diallo, A., & Thuillier, D. (2005). The
success of international development
projects, trust and communications:
An African perspective. International
Journal of Project Management, 23,
237252.
Eggers, H. (1994). Integrated project
cycle management: Roots and perspectives. Project Appraisal, 9(1),
5965.
European Commission (EC). (2002).
Project cycle management handbook,
ver. 2.0. Retrieved from http://www
.sle-berlin.de/sleplus/files/PCM_Train
_Handbook_EN-March2002.pdf
European Commission (EC). (2004).
Project cycle management guidelines,
Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu
/europeaid/multimedia/publications
/documents/tools/europeaid_adm_pc
m_guidelines_2004_en.pdf
Gasper, D. (1997). Logical frameworks: A critical assessment managerial theory, pluralistic practice (ISS
Working Papers). General Series No.
264. The Hague: Institute of Social
Studies.

April 2011 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

59

PAPERS

The Management of International Development Projects

Gasper, D. (2000). Evaluating the logical framework approach: Towards
learning oriented development evaluation. Public Administration and
Development, 20, 1728.
Gesellschaft fr Technische
Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). (1996).
Deutsche gesellschaft fur technische
zusammenarbeit, Project cycle management and objectives-oriented project
planning (ZOPP): Guidelines.
Eschborn, Germany: Author.
Gesellschaft fr Technische
Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). (1997).
Deutsche gesellschaft fur technische
zusammenarbeit. ZOPP: A planning
guide for new and ongoing projects
and programs. Eschborn, Germany:
Author.
International Fund for Agricultural
Development (IFAD). (2001).
Participatory approaches for an
impact-oriented project cycle. Retrieved
from http://www.ifad.org/events
/past/impact/impact_e.pdf
Japan International Cooperation
Agency (JICA). (2001). Participatory
evaluation and international cooperation. Retrieved from http://www
.jica.go.jp/english/publications/reports
/study/topical/participatory/
Japan International Cooperation
Agency (JICA). (2007). Guide to JICA.
Tokyo: Author.
Khang, D. B., & Moe, T. L. (2008).
Success criteria and factors for international development projects: A lifecycle based framework. Project
Management Journal, 39(1), 7284.
MacArthur, J. D. (1994). The logical
framework: A tool for the management
of project planning and evaluation. In
A. Farhad (Ed.), The realities of managing development projects (pp. 87113).
Aldershot, UK: Avebury.

development projects. International

Journal of Project Management, 21,
309319.
Nakabayashi, S. (2000). The Japanese
version of PCM adoption adaption and
application of Zopp: A comparative
analysis of methods and methodologies
(Working Paper 319). The Hague, The
Netherlands: ORPASInstitute of
Social Studies.
Norwegian Agency for Development
Cooperation (NORAD). (1999). The
logical framework approach: Handbook
for objectives-oriented planning (4th ed.).
Oslo, Norway: Author.
Organisation for Economic and Cooperation Development (OECD).
(2008a). OECD annual report 2008.
Paris, France: Author.
Organisation for Economic and Cooperation Development (OECD).
(2008b). OECD: The Paris declaration
on aid effectiveness and the Accra agenda for action 2005/2008. Paris, France:
Author.
Project Management Institute (PMI).
(2008). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK
guide, 4th ed.). Newtown Square, PA:
Author.
Project Management for
Non-Governmental Organizations
(Pm4ngos) Working Group. (2010).
A guide to the PMD Pro1: Project
management for development professional Level 1. Retrieved from
http://ngolearning.org/pm4ngos
/Document%20Library3/1/A%20Guide
%20to%20the%20PMDPro1.pdf

Mulder, L. (1997). The importance of a

common project management method
in the corporate environment. R&D
Management, 27(3), 189196.

Solem, R. (1987). The logical framework approach to project design,

review and evaluation in A.I.D.:
Genesis, impact, problems, and opportunities (A.I.D. Working Paper No. 99).
Washington, DC: Center for
Development Information &
Evaluation Agency for International
Development.

Muriithi, N., & Crawford, L. (2003).

Approaches to project management in
Africa: Implications for international

Swedish International Development

Cooperation Agency (SIDA). (1996).
Guidelines for the application of LFA in

60

April 2011 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

project cycle management. Stockholm:

Author.
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). (2004). ADS
Automated directives system series 200.
Retrieved from http://www.usaid
.gov/policy/ads/200/
US Agency for International
Development (USAID). (2006). ADS
Automated directives system 102.
Retrieved from http://www.usaid.gov
/policy/ads/100/102.pdf
US Agency for International
Development (USAID). (2008). Interim
update 08-08. Retrieved from http://
www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/200/update
s/iu2-0808.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/PNADO
381.pdf
Youker, R. (1999). Managing international development projects, lessons
learned. Project Management Journal,
30(2), 67.
Youker, R. (2003). The nature of international development projects. Paper
presented at the PMI Conference.
Baltimore, MD. Retrieved from http://
www.pmforum.org/library/papers
/2003/youkerbatbalt.pdf

Paolo Landoni, PhD, is an assistant professor at

the Politecnico di Milano (Italy), where he teaches a course on general management. He also
teaches innovation management topics at the
MIP Business School (Milan, Italy). He has been a
visiting scholar at the Department of Economics
and Applied Economics of the Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven (KULeuven). His research is

in the area of innovation management with a

focus on the management of knowledge,
research, and innovation, considering both the
firms perspective and the perspectives of public
sector and third sector organizations (governments, universities, not-for-profit organizations,
etc.). His research has been published in many
books and peer-reviewed journals and he has
served as a consultant for regional and national

government institutions for the development of

new initiatives and innovation policies.
Benedetta Corti works as a consultant specialized in demand management in an Italian consultancy firm. She received a master of science
degree in Management and Production
Engineering from the Politecnico di Milano
University with a thesis on project management

applied to international development projects.

She has been a visiting student at the
Universidad Politecnica de Madrid. She focuses
her research on tools and techniques of project
management with specific attention to the peculiarities of International Development projects.
She is involved in the work of an Italian NGO
devoted to International Cooperation and has
managed and participated in many projects.

April 2011 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

61

Copyright of Project Management Journal is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.