Mitigating Corruption Risks in international development projects [PDF]

Mitigating Corruption Risks in international development projects funded by multi-lateral development banks - Towards a redefinition of project success. Sanjeev Narrainen, Professional Doctorate Candidate, University of Portsmouth, UK [email protected] International development projects financed by multi-lateral development banks (MDBs) are recognized as playing a crucial role in the socio-economic development process of recipient countries. However, these projects by their very nature are particularly prone to corrupt practices. Synthesizing existing literature on project governance, this paper identifies the major impediments to project success for MDBs-financed projects. This study also shows that while the traditional project management approach is very useful for achieving time, cost and quality objectives, it is not mature enough to proactively address corruption risks in the project life cycle. Under the sanctions regime set up by MDBs there is no complacency for organisations found guilty of corrupt practices. Organisations found guilty of corrupt practices are sanctioned and may be cross-debarred by other MDBs. These organisations may, consequently face reputational risks, thus compromising the chance of obtaining future projects. Hence, the need for these organisations to engage proactively in fighting corruption risks in these projects avoiding the risks of investigations by the MDBs while sustaining their business in the future. The essence of this paper is to understand the applicability and relevance of current project management approaches, tools and techniques in international development projects. Through a comprehensive review of existing literature, the paper also identifies the importance of better understanding of the drivers of corruption in MDBs-financed projects. Finally, it proposes a new form of project governance framework to address corruption risks which organisations engaged in MDB’s financed projects may adopt without undermining the success of these projects. It is further argued that project success needs to be redefined for these MDB-financed projects.

Key words : corruption risks, multi-lateral development banks, project governance, project success.

The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the OECD or of its member countries. This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. This paper was submitted as part of a competitive call for papers on integrity, anti-corruption and inclusive growth in the context of the 2017 OECD Global Anti-Corruption & Integrity Forum.

1. Introduction Over the last few decades, many international development projects have been funded by international aid agencies. These projects are normally implemented through loans or grants to the government of the recipient countries. These development projects which include infrastructural projects are recognized by many researchers to be vital in framing the socioeconomic development process of the aid-recipient countries (Khang and Moe, 2008). The effectiveness of these projects has a direct impact on their success. Conversely, an ineffective project makes it more likely that the basic aims of these projects are not met while being a fertile ground for corruption. While much research has focused on the success factors of projects in general (Pinto and Slevin, 1978, 1989), it is noted that there are scant studies on international development projects themselves. Moreover the risk of fraud or corruption is ever present and tools are being devised to measure its extent (Button et al, 2012). Projects financed by the multilateral development banks (MDBs) have different characteristics. According to Khang and Moe (2008), these projects possess significant differentiating characteristics due to the complexity of relationships between the different stakeholders involved (Kwak, 2002; Youker, 1999), and the intangibility of the development results. The paper aims to add to the field of project management with particular focus on international development projects financed by MDBs. The literature on the success parameters in project management (PM) is reviewed to identify and propose a framework that allows project governance to be developed in project-based organisations for MDB-financed projects. The issue of governance in the realm of projects is addressed from an organizational angle to better understand the organization enablers which shape project governance at the level of project implementation. The success of a project is traditionally measured by time, budget, and requirement criteria. Despite the fact that this manner of measuring project success is currently subject to widespread criticism, these criteria are still used in publications on project success. Turner and Cochrane (1993) state that the time-budget-requirements definition of project success is solely directed at the interests of the vendor. Some years earlier, De Wit (1988) already stressed the importance of including various stakeholders’ perspectives in defining project success.

1.1 Characteristics of MDBs-financed projects

Multilateral development banks (MDBs) finance international development projects across the developing world. Unfortunately, most of the recipient countries have relatively weak institutional 1

support in place. These development projects are implemented by contractors which are awarded the contract based on a competitive bidding process. The project cycle consists of different phases which are interrelated and each phase is influenced by its prior phase. Projects typically start with the preparation phase, move through the implementation phase, and finally end with the evaluation phase. It is usual that agreement on both the content and design of the proposed project is reached between the MDB and the recipient government in the preparation phase. Once the proposed projects are approved by the MDB, the implementation phases start, usually supervised by the national project coordinator on behalf of the government. Based on the supervision reports designed to inform the management review, payments are disbursed, aborted, or scaled down by the MDB’s management. Projects financed by MDBs are understandably considered unsuccessful when they fail to achieve their intended goals. In 2010, the World Bank identified some 39% of projects as being unsuccessful (e.g. Chauvet et al., 2010). The reasons for failure are due to several factors which Kwak (2002) classified into two broad categories namely, ‘managerial’ and ‘organisational’. Common recurrent problems that are often crop up are: poor project design, poor management of stakeholders, long delays between start and implementation, delays in project implementation phase, project cost overruns, and coordination failure. (Youker, 1999; Kilby, 2000; Ahsan and Gunawan, 2010). Even though the size of this industry sector is very significant ($ 120 billion US a year in 2009), the focus of research in this area has been very restricted. While some studies have examined projects and analysed project management in general terms (Crawford and Bryce, 2003; Roodman, 2006; Ahsan and Gunawan, 2010; Ika et al., 2010), there is scant literature on the drivers of project success in such aid funded projects (Diallo and Thuillier, 2004, 2005; Khang and Moe, 2008; Ika et al., 2010). By their very nature, these projects are unique in the sense that the interaction with the external environment makes them unique as compared to non-aided projects (Ika et al., 2012). Diallo and Thuillier (, 2005) explained these deviances due to their complexities, the high sensitivity of projects, the relative intangibility of the results of these projects and the range of stakeholders involved. Researchers have identified many challenges in project management that impede on the successful implementation of the techniques and methods associated with project management. Studies have highlighted as important different perspectives among project stakeholders, the need for consensus, the propensity of politicians to syphon off funds, the profound cultural and geographical gap between project designers and the ultimate beneficiaries, and the predominance of bureaucratic rules and procedures were major factors. (Honalde and Rosengard, 1983; Rondinelli, 1983; Gow and Morse, 1988; Youker, 1999; Kwak, 2002; Crawford and Bryce, 2003; Diallo and Thuillier, 2004, 2005; Khang and Moe, 2008; Ika et al., 2010). Due to these identified constraints specific to these type of project, the project management literature on project success is unable to provide a direct answer in addressing the problems (Diallo and Thuillier, 2004, 2005; Khang and Moe, 2008; Ika et al., 2010). 2

1.2 Research Methodology This paper adopted a qualitative content analysis comprehensive literature survey approach. Relevant scholarly journals were consulted for this research. Information from the literature was synthesized and used as input for this study rather than interview or survey techniques (Harden and Thomas, 2010). To this end, the International Journal of Project Management and the Project Management Journal were reviewed, together with prominent journals in the areas of fraud and corruption, spanning the years from 1990 to date. The research papers consulted have used qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods. The work of Jin et al. (2009) who adopted this approach in their studies of the construction sector and of Onwuegbuzie et al. (2010) who defined this process of literature review as “an interpretation of a selection of published documents available from different sources that optimally involves summarization, analysis, evaluation, and synthesis of the documents”. In this perspective, as proposed by Fink (2009) studies and analysis produced by researchers, scholars and practitioners were identified, evaluated and synthesized. In this regards, prominent journals dealing with issues of project governance and corruption issues were searched. Based on the approach adopted by Jing et al. (2009), the scope of the search was extended to include common searches such as Google Scholar. In the quest and selection of relevant publications, the following keywords and combination of were used ‘governance’, ‘project governance’, ‘project success’, ‘project failure’ and ‘corruption risk’. Thirty five journal articles related to the searched keywords were consulted and the various definitions of project success were classified and categorised (see Annex I). Kracauer (1952) advocated a qualitative approach to content analysis, in which meanings and insights can be derived from the text more holistically. Qualitative content analysis can be referred to as ‘a research method for subjective interpretation of the content of text data through the systematic classification process of coding and identifying themes or patterns’ (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005, p. 1278). It is ‘a method for systematically describing the meaning of qualitative material’ (Schreier, 2012, p. 1). One unique characteristic of qualitative content analysis is the flexibility of using inductive or deductive approaches or a combination of both approaches in data analysis depending on the purpose of one’s study (Elo and Kyngas, 2008). The deductive approach starts with preconceived codes or categories derived from prior relevant theory, research, or literature (Cavanagh, 1997; Kondracki, Wellman, and Amudson, 2002). The deductive approach is appropriate when the objective of the study is to test existing theory or retest existing data in a new context. As argued by Schreier (2012) qualitative content analysis is suitable for data that require some degree of interpretation. Qualitative content analysis is frequently employed ‘to answer questions such as what, why and how, and the common patterns in the data are searched for’ by using a consistent set of codes to organise 3

text with similar content (Heikkila and Ekman, 2003). This methodology has the merit to understanding of social reality or phenomena through interpretation of a variety of verbal or written recorded communication materials.

1.2 The Cultural and Political Context Organizational theorists underscore that social-cultural factors do in fact help in shaping the norms and values in the organisation; both the top management level and at the employees level (Jaeger and Kanungo, 1990). According to the latter, cross-cultural issue is the major cause of bad governance in aid-funded projects. There is culture difference from one country to another and even within the same countries. All these studies converge to the fact that the cultural context must be recognised in the workplace as values at work and in social settings are based on the cultural heritage (Adler, 1983; Muriithi and Crawford, 2003). To explain the difference associated with the cultural, Hofsteade (1980) used four different dimensions, namely; risk avoidance, the power of distance, gender and individualism/ collectivism. Recognising the cross-cultural issues in different countries some researchers claimed that what may work in one context may not necessarily work in a different setting. (Muriithi and Crawford, 2003). Turner (1993) recognized the great challenges of implementing in non-western countries those project management techniques which originated from Western countries. This cultural difference can have significant influence on the propensity for corruption practices in projects. In some culture, accepting or giving of bribes may be viewed as normal practices while in others it may be viewed as unacceptable. Some projects will be therefore more prone to corruption risks that others. The cultural difference is an important determinant which should play a part in developing an appropriate Project Governance Framework. International development projects financed by multilateral development agencies (Diallo and Thuillier, 2004) are implemented in countries where the managerial, economics and political environments differ largely from what is used in developed countries. Depending on the context, a funded development project can be considered both social and political- that is meeting both the need of the society while satisfying the political decisions (Diallo and Thuillier, 2004).

2.0 Corruption risks in international development projects Large infrastructure construction projects present complexities and uncertainties (Guo et al., 2014). As such the risks of corruption and malpractices are more prevalent. The difficulties of managing 4

corruption risks due to complex interfaces (Osipova and Eriksson, 2013), along with varieties of stakeholders (Olander and Landin, 2005) can seriously compromise these projects. Corruption, by its very nature, is an activity which thrives when there are opaque procedures. In fact, it is established as a major topic of concern which needs the attention of different stakeholders to properly address it. The World Bank (2001) was among the first MDBs to raise its concern on corruption. According to the World Bank, it is considered the greatest obstacle to economic and social development hence the need to address it from a global perspective. Many studies explored the harmful effects of corruption showing how it can increase the cost of doing business (World Bank, 2002) and misallocate public expenditures (Mauro, 1997, Tanzi and Davoodi, 1997). Based on research studies, sociologists believe that the causes of corruption are social and cultural, and that corruption is a serious impediment for public welfare and social development. Hence, the need to do an in-depth analysis on the organizational context which favours corruption is important to demystify the root cause of corruption for different types of projects. From a demand-driven perspective, organisations have high propensity to bribe for transaction-specific gains. Studies recognized the role of the private sector in perpetuating corrupt practices (Briloff, 1976,1981;Tinker, 1985, Bakre, 2007; Sikka, 2008; Otusanya, 2010). Fighting the scourge of corruption is the greatest challenge in any society unless the organisations are prepared to resist corrupt practices (Luo, 2004). Research on business ethics has elaborated different possibilities for organizations to counteract corruption practices, but has so far it has failed to establish relationships between the environment in which the organization is evolving, behaviours of employees, organizational outcomes and organizational infrastructure. Mitigation of fraud risks requires the full commitment of top managers (Stewart and Kringas, 2003) and has been recognised in the guidance issued by the UK government after the 2010 Bribery Act. Corruption is dynamic in nature. Fighting corruption requires continuous intervention of the organization during the project life-cycle. This is true for all levels of management and for all subcontractors. Sitorus and Scott (2009) rightly indicated that to eliminate corruption there should be organizational adaptation. Lack of appropriate governance structures during project developments is regarded as a major constraint (Crawford et al., 2008; Sargeant, 2010). In order to respond to the turbulent project and organizational environment project governance should be aligned to the overall project management techniques throughout the project life cycle (Sanderson, 2012). The challenge for organisations is therefore, to reconcile the management of projects with the overall governance structure so that project management techniques and tools for different projects are aligned with strategic objectives of the organisation (Too and Weaver, 2014). Governance is central for an organization in ensuring that corrupt behaviour is kept at bay. It is, therefore, important that governance should run from the board level, top management down to the 5

operational level (Klakegg et al (2008). With an appropriate governance system the contours of structures used by the organization is defined. It also ensures that rights and responsibilities are allocated within those structures and management is operating with the parameters of the defined structures. Many researchers have rightly argued that the main objective of project governance is all about the creation of accountability frameworks (Knode, 2004: Ross and Weill, 2002). There should be effective support of the organization’s management system, for the project governance system to operate. Too and Weaver (2014) refers to the role of management as the mirror image of governance to illustrate the strong management commitment that should exist for the governance system to work effectively. Consequently, the success or failure of project is strongly dependent on the support of top management (Young and Jordan, 2008; Lechler and Cohen, 2009).

2.1 The Deterrence of Corruption: Investigative powers of MDBs The mandates of these MDBs are to spur sustainable economic development and social progress in its member countries. In achieving their respective mandates, these MDBs ensure countries’ investment climate through the deterrence, prevention and reduction of fraud, corruption and other harmful practices (Sanctionable Practices) through the operations they financed. Through their investigative powers the MDBs promote tighter adherence to the highest standards of corporate governance and integrity. The MDBs are members of the Joint International Financial Institutions Anti-Corruption Task Force. Along with the Asian Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, European Investment Bank Group, International Monetary Fund, Inter- American Development Bank Group and World Bank Group, the African Development Bank signed the Uniform Framework for Preventing and Combating Fraud and Corruption in September 2006. The Uniform Framework laid the foundation for a consistent and harmonised approach to fight corruption in the activities and operations of the leading international financial institutions. These MDBs have also adopted the International Financial Institutions Principles and Guidelines for Investigations. The Agreement for Mutual Enforcement of Debarment Decisions marks an innovative coordinated effort against fraud, corruption and other misconduct in development projects. The Agreement, signed on 9th April 2010, allows leading multilateral development banks to mutually enforce each other’s debarment decisions of the five sanctionable practices. When firms or individuals are found through an investigation to have engaged in fraudulent, corrupt, collusive, coercive or obstructive practices, the MDB may impose a sanction such as debarment. Debarred entities are then ineligible to be awarded the MDB-financed contract, either permanently of for designated period of time. Sanctions

6

hold wrongdoers accountable for their misconduct and help deter others from engaging in similar behaviour. Consequently, where any of the participating institutions determines that an individual or entity has conducted corrupt, fraudulent, coercive or collusive practices, the other institutions can also refuse to do business with such party. The participating institutions are the African Development Bank Group, Asian Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Inter-American Development Bank and the World Bank Group.

2.2 Project management in International development projects Turner (1993), defines a project as: ‘an endeavour in which human, material and financial resources are organized in such a way as to undertake a scope of work, of particular specification, within the cost and time constraints, so as to achieve beneficial change defined by quantitative and qualitative objectives’. Project management involves techniques and concepts which can play an important role in the management of projects. Turner (1993) highlights that Project management is the process which enables a project to be completed successfully while Atkinson et al (2006) suggest that ‘the objective of project management is to mitigate risks in projects while ensuring that the specified objectives are met’. 2.2.1 Limitation of Project Management

There is scant literature on the drivers of success of funded projects (Khang and Moe, 2008; Diallo and Thuiller, 2004, 2005; Ika et al., 2010). These projects are characterized by their own specificities (Diallo and Thuiller, 2004, 2005) and consequently, the PM literature is unable to address these specificities (Diallo and Thuiller, 2005; Khang and Moe, 2008; Ika et al., 2010; Ika et al, 2012). The concept of project success has been the subject of much debate in management literature and is pivotal to the literature of project management (Freeman and Beale, 1992). The dimensions (criteria) upon which one appreciates success and the factors of success themselves have been the focus of more study. To measure the failure or success of a project, the evaluation dimensions must be well defined. In the Project Management literature, the evaluation dimensions generally of a successful project are limited to the traditional constraints of cost, time and quality. Researchers referred to critical success factors in projects as general conditions, events surrounding the implementation of the projects and circumstances contributing to project success (Pinto and Slevin, 1988; Jugdev and Muller, 2005; Ika, 2009). Researchers have come up with a different list of success factors (e.g. Cooke-Davies, 2002; Jugdev and Müller, 2005; Ika, 2009). The most well-known list of success factors include project mission, support from top-management, stakeholders7

consultation, employees, project timeline, technical tasks, client-acceptance, monitoring and feedback, communication and finally, troubleshooting (Pinto and Slevin, 1988). Project management was developed in the 1950s while International Development became prominent in the 1960s. These have grown in parallel with the consequent that there are very few attempts to bridge the two. From the literature the multiple benefits to be derived with a mature PM systems in place is well noted (Bryde, 2003; Kwak and Ibbs, 2000). It did not take long for the PM systems which exclusively pursue the success criteria based on cost, time and quality while meeting the technical requirements have become ineffective to address the challenges of international funded projects (Bourne et al., 2000; Walton and Dawson, 2001) to thrive in a corrupt free environment. In light with new imperatives, additional critical success factors adapted to the projects specificities should be identified (Turner, 1993; Morris and Hough, 1987; Wateridge ,1998; Mc Pinto and Slevin, 1988; Saarinen, 1990; and Ballantine,1996). Organisations should rethink on a more adapted approach which meets the exigencies of the external environment. Some researchers propose focusing on the expectations of multiple stakeholders (Maylor, 2001; Bryde, 2003; Tukel and Rom, 2001). This approach will be beneficial as the projects financed by MDBs have great impact of stakeholders. It is however, noted that there is great reluctance to move to a new approach. According to (Chan et al., 2003) this reluctance to go beyond these three traditional criteria is due to commercial pressures on these firms. 2.2.2 Common definition of Project success

By their very nature projects are different. They differ in the size of the project, uniqueness - since no two projects are similar and complexity and as such the successful criteria for measuring success of a project vary (Muller and Turner, 2007). As a consequence, there are no universally agreed criteria for measuring success of a project (Westerveld, 2003). Muller and Jugdev (2012) stressed that the crux of the problem is also because a clear and standard definition of project success does not exist. Taking into consideration the problematic of a clear definition of project success, there is general consensus of the importance of developing a meaningful and measurable construct of project success. Stakeholders interpret project success differently (Cleland and Ireland, 2006; Lim and Mohamed, 1999). Project management which offers useful methodologies, approaches and tools and techniques for ID may not necessary lead to project success because of inherent obstacles. Ika (2012) identifies the following three major obstacles: political, organizational and cultural. Out of the three obstacles, he identified the cultural trap as the one which has the greatly influenced project success. Because of the different culture of countries, the project management approach much be tailored so as to overcome these obstacles. (Stuckenbruck and Zomorrodian, 1987). According to Mir and Pinnington (2014) – 8

organizations involved in development projects should invest in PM Performance framework in order to increase the likelihood of obtaining project success.

3.0 The Proposed Project Governance Model Based on the literature, it is found that the existing project management approach – though it has as one of its functions the management of risks - is not mature enough to counteract effectively corruption risks in its internal and external environment. For a corrupt practice to occur there should be a giver and receiver. Three channels through which corruption may occur in such type of projects have been identified. They are namely: 

The organisation to stakeholders,



The organisation to shareholders and



The organisation to employees.

While the organisation to stakeholders is more based on the relationship of the organisation with its external environment, the organisation to shareholders and organisation to employees refer to the channels of corruption within the organisation. We also identify the different stakeholders that can have a strong influence on organisations working on such types of projects. They are as provided in the figure below:

Figure 1: Linkages between Contractors and stakeholders Fighting corruption in funded projects will require organisations to build the project management approach on the three pillars that we identify, namely, organisation to stakeholders, organisation to shareholders and organisation to employees. Building on the three pillars, organisations have to ensure there are adequate control mechanisms in place to control and mitigate corruption risks while 9

ensuring that the cost, quality, time and other factors continue to be met. Ultimately, this will lead to project success as depicted in the framework below. This approach aims at answering the question how to deal with risks in order to prevent a project from failing. These authors consider risk management as an ex-post evaluation process. In this research project success definitions which have been used in the various studies have been investigated in order to determine the extent to which project risk management has contributed to project success, and to compare and categorise the publications. Based on the literature conducted, it is evident that risk management is not being conducted as it should be in order to be effective, according to its basic criteria. And finally, the majority of publications that relate risk management to project success refer to the traditional time-budget-requirements definition of project success. However, this approach is not in line with the views presented by other literature that project success entails more than just meeting time and budget constraints and requirements. Project stakeholders may use various project success definitions (Agarwal and Rathod, 2006). Therefore, the contribution of risk management should be considered in relation to a broader definition of project success. Future research may aim at finding answers to the questions whether and how risk management contributes to project success. Project success is a multidimensional construct that includes both the short-term project management success efficiency and the longer-term achievement of desired results from the project, that is, effectiveness and impact (Judgev et al., 2001; Shenhar et al., 1997).

Organisation to shareholders

employees

Organisation to

Stakeholders

Organisation to

Project Success Managing the channels of corruption risks based on cost, time and quality constraints

Project Management Functions

Cost, Time, Risk, Scope, Quality, Human Resource, Management of Externalities, Communications, Procurement

Figure 2 : Project Governance Framework for effectively addressing corruption risks in projects

10

4. Discussion and Conclusion This paper reviews the literature on project management and with the ultimate aim of exploring the drivers of success in funded projects and throws light into the need of redefining project success. This study has drawn upon the current knowledge base in project management and attempted to extend understanding by synthesizing the existing literature to provide a project governance framework which organisations can put in place to help make funded projects more risk resistant. Organisations have to focus on enablers in order to get rid of unethical behaviour (Ho, 2011) so as to instil an anticorruption culture. There is a need for ethics in the organizational fabric to be improved. This paper also discusses the organizational drivers and relevant attributes expected of an entity engaged in development projects financed by MDBs. A model for enabling the successful implementation of projects while mitigating corruption risks was hypothesized in this study based on relevant literature reviews in the field. This article contributes to the body of knowledge both in practice and academic research. The hypothesized model that has been developed would be helpful for organisations to scrutinise their efforts towards becoming more corrupt-resistant in the project implementation stage. This study also opens a new argument in this under-explored research area of the linkage between project management and good governance, which can be extensively explored from different context, location and research perspectives. It, thus, tends to bring about a change in research direction. Based on the arguments put forward, there is need for the understanding of project success criteria to be evolved from the simplistic triple constraint concept to something that encompasses many more success criteria including addressing corruption risks.

11

Annex I Publication

Definition of project success

Strategy for project

Anti-

success

corruption measures

1

Achterkamp and Vos

Interest of stakeholders

(2008 2

Ahsan and Gunawan

Stakeholder classification

no

model Time and cost

(2010)

Donor and host country

no

work together to plan and implement the project

3

Atkinson (1999)

Time, cost and quality and stakeholders

Proposal for a new

no

framework 4

5

Aubry et al. (2007)

Bakker, Boonstra and Wortmann(2010)

To include project management office to better manage

New conceptual

projects

framework

no

Time, budget and project requirement

Management approach

no

Management and

no

Interest of vendor/ supplier Stakeholders’ perspectives

6

Bryde (2003)

Multi-stakeholder expectation

communication skills 7

Chan et al (2003)

Commercial pressure

Marketing management

no

8

Cooke-Davies (2002)

Cost, time and quality criteria

Project management

no

9

Diallo and Thruillier

Communications and cooperation between stakeholders

Team building in trust

no

(2005) 10

11

climate

de Carvalho , Patah, de

national environment plays a key role in project

Souza Bido(2016)

performance

Fortune and White, (2006)

Factors can be categorized into environmentally related

Environmental concerns

no

Environmental concerns

no

From corporate

yes

(meaning where the project resides) 12

Guo et al. (

Time cost and quality Risk management element

governance to project governance

13

Hyväri, (2006)

Factors can be categorized into environmentally related

Environmental concerns

no

Critical success factors: Monitoring, coordination, design,

Strengthening of project

no

training and institutional environment

design and monitoring

Factors can be categorized into environmentally related

Environmental concerns

no

Project management

no

(meaning where the project resides) 14

15

Ika et al. (2011)

Jha and Iyer, (2006)

(meaning where the project resides) 16

Khang and Moe (2008



Visible impact on beneficiaries



Build institutional capacity



Good reputation

12

17

Kloppenborg, Tesh and Manolis (2014)

18

Lim and



Project is meaningful



Project extension



Project purpose



Long term goal 

Firm’s future



Meeting agreement



Customer’s success



Use of micro and macro criteria

Empirical life cycle stage

no

investigation

Management concept

no

Project management

no

Mohammed(1999) 19

Lipovetsky et al (1997)

Meeting design and planning goals Customer benefits 

20

Benefit to defense and national infrastructure

techniques

Mir and Pinnnington

Variables which employees can relate directly to project

Project management

(2014)

environments

framework

no

21

Muller and Jugdev(2012)

Success beyond the fraud triangle

Management notion

no

22

Müller and Turner (2007)

To achieve a common understanding of what project

Project management

no

Client should take interest

no

success is, it should be measurable and therefore defined in terms of success criteria 23

Munns and Bjeimii (1996)

Oriented towards achievement of project

in the development and use of project 24

Muriithi and Crawford

Skills, knowledge, tools and techniques

(2003) 25

Palomo et al. (2007)

Pinto and Mantel (1990)

no

cultural and work values Cost, duration and performance

Framework to model

no

uncertainty

Risk Analysis 26

Should be align with

Implementation process

Project management tools

no

Perceived value of the project Client satisfaction with result 27

Raz and Michael(2001)

Use of successful project management tool

Risk assessment method

no

28

Sage et al. ( 2014)

the social and political contextualization of performance in

Management model

no

project management 29

Sauser et al., (2009)

New criteria depend on the context

Management

no

30

Shenhar et al. (2010)

Short term and long term project objectives

Framework built on

no

efficiency, impact business success, preparing for

13

future 31

Shenhar and Dvir, (2007)

To include more success criteria other than cost, quality

Management

no

and time. 32

Stefanovic (2007)

Building team work effectiveness

Management of people

no

33

Too and Weaver (2013)

Satisfy corporate governance requirements/ project

Project governance

Fraud/ Bribery

sponsor

framework

within the organisation

34

Judgev and Müller( 2005)

However, its meaning is still not generally agreed upon

Management issues to be

no

incorporated 35

Zwikael and Ahn(2011)

Perceived levels of project risk

Risk management

no

Intensity of risk management processes

14

References Abrahamson, M. (1983). Social research methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Agarwal, N., Rathod, U. (2006). Defining ‘success’ for software projects: an exploratory revelation. International Journal of Project Management, 24, 358-370. De Wit, A. (1988). Measurement of project success. International Journal of Project Management, 6(3), 164-170. Turner, J. R., Cochrane, R. A. (1993). Goals-and-methods matrix: coping with projects with illdefined goals and/ or methods of achieving them. International Journal of Project Management, 11(2), 93-102. Ackerman, S. R. (2001). Trust and honesty in post-socialist societies. Kyklos, 54, 415-444. Adler. N. J. (1983). Cross-cultural management research: the ostrich and the trend. Academy of Management Review. 8(2):226-232. Ahsan, K., Gunawan, I., 2010. Analysis of cost and schedule performance of international development projects. International Journal of Project Management. 28(1). 68-78. Atkinson, R. (1999). ‘Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria’, International Journal of Project Management. Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 337-342. Ballantine, J., Bonner, M., Levy, M., Martin, A, Munro.I and Powell, P. L (1996).’The 3-D model of information systems successes: the search for the dependent variable continues.’ Information Resources Management Journal. 9(4), 5-14. Blomquist, T., Muller, R. (2006). Middle managers in program and portfolio management: practice, roles and responsibilities. Project Management Institute, Newton Square, USA. Bourne, M., Mills, J., Wilcox, M., Neely, A., Platts, K., 2000. ‘Designing, implementing and updating performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations and Production Management. 20(7). 754-771. Bryde, D. J., (2003a). Modelling project management performance. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management. 20 (2), 229-254. Bryde, D, J., (2003b). ‘Project management, concepts, methods and applications.’ International Journal of Operations and Production Management. 23 (7), 775-793. Chan, A. P. C., Chan, D. W. M., Ho, K. S. K., 2003, Partnering in construction: Critical study of problems for implementation.’ Journal of Management in Engineering. 19(3), 126-135. Chauvet, L., Collier, P., Duponchel, M., 2010. What explains aid project success in post-conflict situations? The World Bank Policy Research Working Paper. 5418. Cho, J. Y., & Lee, E-H. (2014): Reducing Confusion about Grounded Theory and Qualitative Content Analysis: Similarities and Differences. The Qualitative Report, 19(64), 1-20.

15

Cooke-Davies, T., 2002. The “real” success factors on projects. International Journal of Project Management. 20(1), 185-190. Crawford, L., Hobbs, B., Labuschagne, L., Remington, K., Chen, P., 2008. Governance and support in the sponsoring of projects and programs. Project Management Journal. 39, S43-S55 Crawford, P., Bryce, P., 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. de Bakker, K., Boonstra, A., Wortmann, H. (2010). Does risk management contribute to IT project success? A meta-analysis of empirical evidence. International Journal of Project Management, 28,493-503. De Wit, A., (1988).’Measurement of project management success’. International Journal of Project Management. 6(3), 164-170. Fink, A. (2009). Conducting research literature reviews: From the Internet to paper. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Frame, D., 1995. Managing Projects in Organisations, second e. Jossey-Bass, Inc. Freeman, M. Beale, P., (1992). Measuring project success. Project Management Journal; 23(1): 8-17. Guo, F., Chang-Richards, Y., Wilkinson, S., Cun Li, T., (2014). Effects of project governance structures on the management of risks in major infrastructure projects: A comparative analysis. International Journal of Project Management. 32, 815-826 Hall, R. (1993). A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal. Vol. 14, No. 8, 422-432. Harden, A. and Thomas. J, (2010). Mixed Methods and systematic reviews: Examples and emerging issues. In Tashakkori. A., Teddlie.C., Handbook of mixed methods in the social and behavioural sciences, 2nd edition. Sage. Heikkila, K., & Ekmanm, S-L. (2003). Elderly care for ethnic minorities – Wishes and expectations among elderly Finns in Sweden. Ethnicity & Health, 8(2), 135-146. Ho, M, F. (2011). Ethics management for the construction industry: A review of ethical decisionmaking literature. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, 18(5). 516-537. Hofstede, G., (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International difference in work-related values. Hsieh, H-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.London: Sage. Ika, L. A., Diallo, A., and Thuiller, D. (2010),’Project management in the international industry: The project coordinator’s perspective.’ International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 3(1), 6193. Ika. L. A (2012). ‘Project Management for Development in Africa: Why projects are failing and what can be done about it’, Project Management Journal, Vol 43, No. 4, 27-41. 16

Ika, L, A., Diallo, A., Thuillier, D., 2012. Critical success factors for World Bank projects: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Project Management, 30, 105-116. Jaeger, A, M, Kanungo, R. N., Management in developing countries. New York, NY: Routledge; 1990. Jin, Y., Shen, Q., and Ho, M. F., (2009). An overview of previous studies in stakeholder management and its implications for construction industry. Journal of Facilities Management, 7(2), 159-175. Khang. D. B, and Moe. T. L, (2008), ‘Success Criteria and Factors for International Development Projects: A Life-Cycle-Based Framework’, Project Management Journal, Vol 39, No. 1, 72-84. Kilby, C., 2000. Supervision and performance: the case of World Bank projects. Journal of Development Economics, 62, 233-259. Kracauer, S. (1952). The challenge of qualitative content analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 16,631642. Kwak, Y. H., 2002. Critical success factors in international development project management. CIB 10th International Symposium Construction Innovation and Global Competiveness. Cincinnati, Ohio, 9-13 September. Kwak, Y.H., Ibbs. C. W., 2000. Calculating project management’s return on investment. Project Management Journal 31 (2), 38-47. Lindkvist, L., 2004. Governing project-based firms: promoting market-like processes within hierarchies. Journal of Management Governance. 8(3-25). Luo, Y., (2004). An Organisational Perspective of Corruption. Management and Organisation Review, 1:1, 119-154. March, J, G., and Simon, H, A., (1958). Organisation. New York: Wiley. Maylor, H., 2001. ‘Beyond the Gantt chart: project management moving on.’ European Management Journal, 19(1), 92-100. Mir, F. A., Pinnington, A. H., 2014, ‘Exploring the value of project management: Linking Project Management Performance and Project Success’, International Journal of Project Management, 32, 202-217. Moretti, F., van Vliet, L., Bensing, J., Deledda, G., Mazzi, M., Rimondini, M., Zimmermann, C., & Fletcher, I. (2011). A standardised approach to qualitative content analysis of focus group discussions from different countries. Patient Education and Counseling, 82(3), 420-428. Morris. P. W. G, Hough. G. H (1987). ‘The Anatomy of Major Projects.’ John Wiley. Muller R and Lecoeuvre. L., 2014. Operationalising governance categories of projects. International Journal of Project Management. 32 (2014) 1346-1357 Muller, R., 2009. Project governance. Gower Publishing, Aldershot, UK.

17

Muller. R., Jugdev, K, 2012. Critical success factors in projects, Pinto, Slevin, and Prescott- the elucidation of project success. International Journal of Project Management 5(4), 757-775. Muller. R., Turner, R., 2007. The influence of project managers on project success by type of project. European Management Journal. 25(4), 298-309. Muriithi. N., Crawford. L., (2003). Approaches to project management in Africa: implications for international development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 309-319. Oisen, R. P., (1971).’Can project management be defined? Project Management Quarterly, 2(1), 1214. PMI. PMBOK Guide. PA: PMI Upper Darby: 1996. Pinto. J. K., and Slevin, D. P.,’ Critical success factors across the project lifecycle.’ Project Management Journal, XIX, 67-75. Roodman, D., 2006. Aid project proliferation and absorptive capacity. Centre for Global development Working Paper 17, 1-45. Saarinen, T.(1990).’ Systems development methodology and project success.’ Information and Management, 19, 183-193. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sitorus, T. and Scott, D (2009). Integrated Fraud Risk Factors and Robust Methodology: A Review and Comment. International Journal of Auditing, 13: 281-297. Stuckenbruck, L. C., and Zomorrodian, A. (1987), ‘Project management: The promise for developing countries’, International Journal of Project Management, 5(3), 167-175. Tukel, O.I., Rom, W. O., 2001.’ An Empirical investigation of project evaluation criteria.’ International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 21(3), 400-416. Turner, J. R., (1996). ‘International Project Management Association global qualification, certification and accreditation.’ International Project Management, 14(1), 1-6. Turner, J. R.,’The Handbook of Project-based Management: improving the process for achieving strategic objectives.’ London: McGraw-Hill, 1993. Walton, E. J., Dawson, S., 2001. ‘Manager’s perceptions of criteria of organizational effectiveness.’ Journal of Management Studies, 38(2), 173-199. Wateridge, J (1998).’How can IS/IT projects be measured for success? International Journal of Project Management, 16(1), 59-63. Weigelt, K and Camerer, c (1988), Reputation and corporate strategy. A review of recent theory and application. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 9, No. 5. Westerveld, E., 2003. The project Excellence Model: linking success criteria and critical success factors. International Journal of Project Management .21, 411-418.

18

Wright, J, N., (1997).’Time and budget: the twin imperative of a project sponsor; International Journal of Project Management, 15(3), 181-186. Youker, R., 1999. Managing international development project: lessons learned. Project Management Journal, 30 (2), 6-7.

19

oe.cd/integrity2017 [email protected] #OECDintegrity