JPMA-02212; No of Pages 12

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
International Journal of Project Management xx (2019) xxx
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Towards a ‘New Project Management’ movement?

An international development perspective
Robert Picciotto 1
University of Auckland, New Zealand
Received 27 October 2018; received in revised form 14 May 2019; accepted 11 August 2019
Available online xxxx

Abstract

This article offers an international development perspective on project management. A brief history of the ambitious and controversial role that
projects have played over seven decades of development assistance in diverse operational contexts evokes many of the themes vividly articulated
by the flourishing contemporary project management literature. They highlight the limitations of conventional project management practices
dominated by Management by Objectives principles. Development experience also stresses the promise of adaptable approaches to project design
and management in complex and turbulent operating environments and it suggests that projects conceived as experiments can contribute to sound
decision making at the higher plane of strategy formulation and policy-making. Beyond confirming the soundness and utility of contemporary
project management scholarship, the article puts forward six recommendations grounded in development experience that may be worth
consideration by the nascent ‘New Project Management’ movement.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd, APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Evaluation; New public management; International development; Project cycle; Results chain

“Modesty with respect to generalized evaluation and
quantification is in reality the necessary counterpart of the
large and free-swinging ambitions projects must entertain
and cultivate in countries where they are called upon to
make a contribution to progress that goes far beyond their
immediate production tasks2”.
Albert O. Hirschman.
1. Introduction
Triggered by economic recession and public opposition to
taxes, the ‘new public management’ (NPM) emerged in the late
1970s and triumphed in the early 1980's. Since then, promoted
by private consulting firms, NPM doctrines have facilitated
E-mail address: r.picciotto@jeunot.net.
1
Robert Picciotto headed Projects Departments in three of the World Bank
Regions before being promoted to Vice President, Corporate Planning and
Budgeting and subsequently to Director General, Independent Evaluation
Group (1992–2002)
2
Hirschman, 1995, p. 188
government widespread adoption of business administration
principles (Ika and Lytvynov, 2011; Osborne and Gaebler,
1992). Early and diverse applications in the United Kingdom,
New Zealand, Australia and the United States have been
replicated throughout the world. Specifically, as noted by
Gruening (2001), NPM has inspired the design and use of such
public policies as budget austerity, privatization, deregulation,
contracting out, vouchers, decentralization, internal competi-
tion, promotion of corporate management methods in the public
sector, etc.
The NPM movement rests on the theoretical pillars of
neoliberal economics, transaction cost analysis, principal-agent
theory and public choice doctrines. Current project manage-
ment models focused on achieving intended results are
animated by the same ideas. But systemic deficiencies in the
use of such models have been noted (Young et al., 2012) and in
the international development arena, where ‘new wealth’
entrepreneurs have become major players (Moran and Stone,
2016), the heavy bureaucracy and high transaction costs of the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.08.002
0263-7863/00 © 2019 Elsevier Ltd, APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: R. Picciotto, Towards a ‘New Project Management’ movement? An international development perspective, International Journal of Project
Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.08.002
2 R. Picciotto / International Journal of Project Management xx (2019) xxx
audit and inspection industry have elicited a spirited reaction
(Ika and Lytvynov, 2011; Natsios, 2010).
In parallel, a flourishing scholarly project management
literature combining theoretical insights with empirical studies
is challenging current project management practices (Bergmann
and Karwowski, 2018). Yet, as noted by Ika and Hodgson
(2014), the scholarly conversation between the field of
international development and project management have been
limited, despite their deep and shared interest for change.
While it may be too early to hail a ‘New Project
Management’ movement that overturns conventional project
management precepts, there is little doubt that the intellectual
infrastructure for such an initiative is being constructed by
project management academics (Lundin and Soderholm, 1995;
Morris, 2013; Sydow and Braun, 2017; etc.).
This is providential: such a paradigm would help liberate
new energies and make projects more relevant and effective in
complex and uncertain operating environments (Shenhar and
Dvir, 2007). In line with these aspirations, this article explores
the intersection of project management and international
development to benefit from yet untapped opportunities of
cross-fertilization (Ika and Hodgson, 2014; Ika, 2018). It
confirms the emerging findings of a nascent New Project
Management movement and suggests additions to its agenda
through an examination of the successes and travails of the
project enterprise in the international development field.
The article is in five parts. First, it sketches in broad strokes,
the origins of traditional project management practices and
points to the recent upsurge of academic publications that
question the status quo (Morris, 2011, 2013). Second, it unfolds
the history of projects in development and shows that projects
conceived as experiments (Rondinelli, 1993) have helped to
incubate and upscale innovative development policies. Third, it
outlines the central role that evaluation has played in promoting
accountability and learning, as a counterweight to the results-
based management approach (Ika, 2012; Ika and Lytvynov,
2011) and the oppressive excesses of the compliance industry
(Picciotto, 2013, 2015). Fourth, it describes the analytical tools
that have been forged to monitor and assess project perfor-
mance in turbulent and risky operating environments (Ika,
2015, 2018; Ika et al., 2010, 2012). Fifth, it offers six
recommendations for consideration by the ‘New Project
Management’ pioneers, based on the hard-won lessons of
development experience.
2. The limits of implementation in project management
Project management has an ancient history. Such architec-
tural marvels as the Pyramids of Giza, the Great Wall of China
or the Coliseum in Rome would not have been created without
effective project management (Seymour and Hussein, 2014).
On the other hand, project management as a discipline did not
emerge until the early 20th century when the great French
engineer Henri Fayol (1841–1925) outlined five essential
functions, still considered relevant by project management
practitioners: planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating
and controlling (Fells, 2000). Next, Henry Gantt (1919)
Please cite this article as: R. Picciotto, Towards a ‘New Project Management’ movement? An international development perspective, International Journal of Project
Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.08.002
designed tools to better design and track large projects by
breaking them up into discrete tasks.
The project is a social construct (Morris, 2011, 2013).
Throughout its history, the goal achievement model has
dominated project management practices (Seymour and
Hussein, 2014). In the 1960's and 1970's, experience with
large projects gave rise to methods designed to take account of
task interdependencies and to focus managerial attention on the
most critical tasks (Project Evaluation Review Techniques,
Critical Path Method, etc.). In the 1980's and 1990's, following
the advent and increased use of computers, a variety of software
programs emerged to help organizations achieve their goals
while managing risks. Since then, professionalization has been
promoted by the International Project Management Association
and the Project Management Institute, with decidedly mixed
results (Hällgren et al., 2012). More research is needed to
determine why projects may fail or succeed despite poor
management and conversely why effective project management
performance does not invariably lead to good performance (Ika,
2015, 2018; Shenhar and Dvir).
2.1. The lure of goal achievement
Management by Objectives (MBO) favours short-term
objectives that are easy to quantify, irrespective of their
strategic significance. Reflecting a hierarchical management
style, MBO requires many meetings and much paper work.
First proposed by Peter Drucker (1954), the MBO model lost its
lustre following its travails in the competitive business world.
The coup de grace was delivered by Edward Deming (1994)
who argued that total quality management requires systems
thinking, teamwork, and leadership rather than top-down,
bureaucratic, indicator-driven management. A convincing
synthesis between the two approaches has yet to emerge.3
Currently dominant project management practices are
aligned with the MBO approach and they faithfully reflect the
control orientation of New Public Management principles.
Thus, Gary Richardson (2010) states that “the role of a Project
Manager is to make it happen” (p.4). Taking the ‘it’ for granted,
the traditional project management approach concentrates on
the mechanics of project planning, implementing, and control-
ling while paying lip service to front-end assessments of project
goals. In the same vein, Morris (2013) notes that project
management practitioners tend to devote more attention to
justifying the means rather than the ends of projects. They are
encouraged to adopt this stance by project management
handbooks that concentrate heavily on implementation towards
predetermined goals with little regard to their social relevance
or to their adaptation to the operating and social context.
Animated by systematic and rational methods, they advocate
3
This is not to deny that the two approaches have things in common: driving
out fear, promoting innovation, judicious use of rewards, etc. (https://www.
processexcellencenetwork.com/business-process-management-bpm/columns/
peter-f-drucker-and-w-edwards-deming-intersections)
 R. Picciotto / International Journal of Project Management xx (2019) xxx
time-tested tools focused on planning and control. This appeals
to action-oriented managers whose remit is to get things done
and who do not question authority. They are dedicated to clear
and precise goals. They take great satisfaction in the efficient
and smooth delivery of intended results on time and on budget
(Andersen, 2014).
Thus, the Association for Project Management defines
project management as “the application of processes, methods,
knowledge, skills and experience to achieve the project
objectives4”. Similarly, a sharp results orientation characterizes
the Fifth Edition of the Project Management Body of
Knowledge (Project Management Institute, 2013) which
defines projects as temporary endeavours undertaken to achieve
a result (p. 3) and project management as the application of
knowledge, skills, tools and techniques to meet project
requirements (p.5) “in alignment with the organization's goals
and managed in accordance with the organization's established
practices” (p.19).
2.2. Towards a New Project Management movement?
A burgeoning scholarly literature is currently challenging
the linear concepts embedded in traditional project manage-
ment approaches. By now, numerous scholars have established
that conventional project management practices are poorly
adapted to operating environments characterized by volatility
and uncertainty. In such circumstances, precise planning is
ineffective due to the unpredictable ways in which unstable
systems change (Kopczyński and Brzozowski, 2015). Devia-
tion from the initial project plan and redrawing project
boundaries are frequently needed to handle changed circum-
stances and overcome unexpected challenges in a timely and
cost-effective way.
In response, some scholars have injected systems theory and
complexity thinking in the project management field (Kapsali,
2011; Shenhar and Dvir, 2007). In parallel, the imperative of
creativity and innovation has brought forth complex project
management systems in high technology industries geared to
the development of new products through improvisation, inter-
functional collaboration, and concurrent and iterative processes
far better adapted to the timely detection and redressal of
unavoidable errors than sequential processes implemented in
turn by distinct organizational units (Lindkvist et al., 1998).
Still other scholars have questioned project design and
management practices which ignore the antecedents, and the
social and institutional context of projects, i.e. treat projects as
‘islands’ with closed boundaries best managed ‘by the book’
(Engwall, 2003).
In sum, contemporary project management research is
seeking to ‘rethink’ project management theory and broaden
its scope (Svejvig and Andersen, 2015). Diverse project studies
have been proposed to address more rigorously causal
relationships in the positivist tradition, mobilize the insights
of complexity and network theory, and engage in emancipatory
4
https://www.apm.org.uk/body-of-knowledge/context/governance/project-
management/
Please cite this article as: R. Picciotto, Towards a ‘New Project Management’ movement? An international development perspective, International Journal of Project
Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.08.002
3
research that gives voice to disadvantaged groups. (Geraldi and
Soderlund, 2018). Research on values-based, ethical project
management is underway: responsiveness to diverse stake-
holders' views in the public interest is being advocated as an
essential feature of principled management leadership (Moylan
and Walker, 2012).
Finally, as illustrated by other articles in this special issue,
reaching out to the international development enterprise is
contributing to the quiet but unmistakable revolution currently
underway in the project management arena. Some project
management thinkers are reaching out to international devel-
opment projects experience in voluntary organizations (Golini
et al., 2015) while others are probing how the dynamics of
project implementation can be improved (Ika et al., 2012).
In the same vein, this article advocates more systematic use
of the accumulated lessons of the international development
enterprise to help project management practitioners escape the
implementation “black box” within which they are all too often
consigned (Ika, 2015, 2018). Broadening the scope of project
management models to embrace ideas drawn from development
experience makes eminent sense since international develop-
ment is emblematic of the ubiquity of the project idea
throughout the world (Ika and Hodgson, 2014).
3. Projects as privileged particles of development
The global success of the project approach in development is
undeniable. Thousands of aid practitioners are currently
engaged in project design, appraisal, and management activities
worldwide. Armed with specialized evaluation tools, they are
backed up by a proliferating network of consultancies and
centres of expertise. What lies behind this extraordinary global
success? This section highlights the enormous power of the
project idea; its remarkable agility to adapt to changing
development policy directions; its effectiveness as a develop-
ment learning instrument; its use as a lever for transformative
social change; and its frequent reconfiguration so as to keep
serving as the essential building block in the construction of
development programs.
3.1. The project idea
As a noun, the word project implies novelty of intent, clarity
of purpose, ad-hoc (often temporary) organizational arrange-
ments, readiness to incur risks and concentration of skills and
efforts. It also promises an imaginative vision, a calculated
method, an explicit sequence, and a concern for consistency. It
is about getting things done rationally and through concerted
action. The term evokes spontaneity, anticipation, and incom-
pleteness which also characterise the international development
adventure.
As a verb, the term conveys determination: “to project”
signals ambition, creativity, and deliberation. It also means
being exposed, striking a pose, making oneself heard, and
revealingly, it can also signify imputing one's desires (or
imposing one's perceptions of reality) on others – a missionary
aspiration which for better or for worse is prevalent in the aid
4 R. Picciotto / International Journal of Project Management xx (2019) xxx
industry (Ika and Hodgson, 2014). Equally, to project implies
precision of intent: literally, “to project” is to aim at a target (i.e.
projectiles). Finally, in philosophy, the verb merges with the
noun and for existentialists, projects reveal ‘who we are’ in a
world where life takes on meaning through projects conceived
in freedom.
Thus, a project implies choosing a pattern into which all our
day-to-day decisions, desires and values fit: this is our
fundamental project (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
2011). From this perspective, projects signal intentionality,
singularity, and authenticity: they are inseparable from identity.
Projects also connect individuals to society: they help make up
the world of others – just as the projects of others help make up
our own. For all these reasons, the project concept offers wide
opportunities for purposeful social action.
3.2. The origins of development projects
Projects have long been the workhorses of development
cooperation. The international aid industry emerged out of
the ashes of World War II to improve the well-being and
enhance the capabilities and freedoms of the world's poorest
and most vulnerable people (Sen, 1999). Following seven
decades of development experience, it is high time for
project managers and analysts everywhere to benefit from
the travails and discoveries of projects carried out in the
zones of dynamism and turmoil of the developing world (Ika
and Hodgson, 2014).
International development projects were conceived as
ambitious ventures from the very start. They achieved
prominence at a time of unbridled optimism and confidence
in government (Arndt, 1987). Indeed, the history of aid projects
demonstrates that projects can serve as instruments of social
and environmental policy if conceived as adaptable endeav-
ours, managed to reach beyond narrow goal achievement
approaches and reliant on evaluation mechanisms geared to
learning and accountability.
Throughout the pioneering years of the 1950's, most
development economists held the view that reliance on the
free market was not enough to generate economic development.
Influenced by the experience of wartime planning, public sector
projects were adopted as primary tools of economic transfor-
mation in the newly independent countries. Thus, international
development projects were originally conceived as the indis-
pensable components of five-year development plans geared to
nation building and improved livelihoods (Dasgupta, 1987). It
was widely expected that increased public investment, made
possible by development aid, would help poor countries escape
the poverty trap.
This mental construct featured a dominant government role
in the economy and deliberately simulated the “production
function” metaphor of development. Through projects, a blue-
print approach to development facilitated the retailing of public
expenditures programs for external assistance. Conceived as
slices of the public investment program, projects were selected
to serve national goals. As platforms for international
Please cite this article as: R. Picciotto, Towards a ‘New Project Management’ movement? An international development perspective, International Journal of Project
Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.08.002
cooperation, they offered a convenient vehicle for the resource
transfers needed to fill national savings gaps (Lewis, 1984).
The notion that a large collection of investment projects was
the key to development cooperation and growth was eloquently
articulated by Paul Rosenstein-Rodan (1984). His “big push”
theory of development asserted that a critical mass of public
investment would use the external economies associated with
rapid growth to help induce a shift of underemployed rural
labour towards the more productive industrial sector. This
implied a large portfolio of projects featuring major invest-
ments in industry, infrastructure and urbanization explicitly
selected to facilitate inter-firm exchanges, achieve complemen-
tarity among firms and tap economies of scale.
The resulting focus on social overhead capital, complemen-
tarity in investment decisions and external economies implied a
prominent role for government in economic planning and
investment decisions. Thus, the project concept in international
development is rooted in an explicit macro-economic rationale
and it constitutes an existential imperative for the aid industry.
However, as conceptions of economic development changed,
so did development project designs.
3.3. Projects as versatile development instruments
It is at the World Bank that development project work was
first codified and where the project was gradually adapted to
serve diverse and evolving aid policy directions. It was inspired
by the successful implementation of large infrastructure
projects in developed countries (e.g. the Hoover Dam). But
the peculiarities of project implementation in poor countries led
to gradual changes in concepts and approaches. For example,
the use of development projects as agents of change through
dialogue and participation of beneficiaries in project design and
implementation parallels contemporary project management
research focused on organizational change (Van Marrewijk,
2018).
Albert O. Hirschman, who ranks among the most
innovative and perceptive social scientists of the past century,
embarked on a worldwide tour of World Bank financed
projects in 1964 (Hirschman, 1995). Drawing on field
observations of eleven projects selected to illustrate devel-
opment experience in various sectors and geographical areas,
he discovered that, beyond their direct effects on the
production of goods and services, most projects have far-
reaching and unintended consequences, both positive and
negative (Ika and Soderlund, 2016).
These effects are so varied and elusive that they can hardly
be detected let alone ranked through a single criterion. In
Hirschman's own words: “Upon inspection, each project turns
out to represent a unique constellation of experiences and
consequences, of direct and indirect effects. This uniqueness in
turn results from the varied interplay between the structural
characteristics of projects, on the one hand, and the social and
political environment, on the other” (op.cit., p.186).
A recurrent theme of Hirschman's classic is that projects are
“privileged particles of development”. They are privileged
because development cooperation is about social learning as
 R. Picciotto / International Journal of Project Management xx (2019) xxx
well as accountability. The unforeseen difficulties and risks
facing project implementation are concealed by a providential
Hiding Hand. They bring forth hidden ingenuities and
resources and provide opportunities to learn from error
(Hirschman, 1995; Ika, 2018; Ika and Soderlund, 2016). In
turn, this means that project objectives are not always explicit
(Golini et al., 2015; Ika and Hodgson, 2014). Indeed, the tacit
intent of international development projects cannot be equated
with their efficacy in meeting pre-ordained, measurable
objectives.
Accordingly, Hirschman (1995) emphasized the “centrality
of side effects” (externalities, spill-overs, linkages, repercus-
sions, etc.). No consistent metric can fully capture let alone
aggregate these dimensions: what is most important and
significant cannot always be measured. Only a generous
conception of projects can explain why individual development
interventions have been variously used as: (i) policy change
instruments; (ii) upscaling mechanisms for pioneering local
initiatives; and (iii) transmission belts for new ideas and
technologies. A few examples illustrate this proposition.
First, the requirement that all major infrastructure projects
funded by the World Bank should be subject to international
bidding procedures and to compliance with safeguard policies
(World Bank, 2017; Ika, 2015) has had a powerful signalling
effect that extends far beyond the projects themselves.5 It has
promoted transparency in government contracting and helped
protect vulnerable social groups and the environment. Second,
multiplier effects throughout the countryside have characterized
“trait making” projects (Hirschman, 1995; Ika and Soderlund,
2016) such as livestock development projects used to
disseminate intensive production patterns and new pasture
varieties, e.g. in Brazil (World Bank, 1967) or agricultural
extension projects, geared to improved small farmers' practices
through easier access to state-of-the-art research (World Bank,
1991).
Conversely, “trait taking” projects (Hirschman, 1995; Ika
and Soderlund, 2016) make a difference by disseminating
successful development experiments, e.g. the expansion of a
dairy marketing cooperative system pioneered within the State
of Gujarat triggered a nationwide dairy revolution in India
(World Bank, 1998). Thus, international development projects
have come in different shapes in diverse operating environ-
ments but, in all their embodiments, they have reflected a
rationalist, pragmatic ‘can do’ spirit (Ika and Hodgson, 2014).
They have promoted innovation; attracted new partners; helped
crowd in private investment; incubated and replicated new
development approaches; etc. They have been combined and
sequenced to tap synergies; build institutions and give
credibility and impetus to new policy directions. This is a far
cry from the inward looking, results-obsessed, metrics-driven,
value free approach that characterizes conventional project
management practice.
5
The Equator Principles, used by the private financial industry to determine,
assess, and manage environmental and social project risks, are inspired by the
World Bank Group Environmental and Social Framework (http://www.equator-
principles.com/resources/equator_principles_III.pdf)
Please cite this article as: R. Picciotto, Towards a ‘New Project Management’ movement? An international development perspective, International Journal of Project
Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.08.002
5
3.4. Aid projects move to a higher plane
The need for broadening the scope of project work to serve
vast ambitions became self-evident following the neoclassical
resurgence in development economics that justified putting
projects to work to drive country-wide policy reform. For better
or for worse, the micro-economics of investment appraisal gave
way to the macro-economics of the Washington consensus.6
This doctrinal shift was consistent with the controversial role
that the World Bank and other development finance institutions
played throughout the eighties and nineties in promoting open
trade and neoliberal economic policies. But there is little doubt
that Sector Wide Approaches and Structural Adjustment
Programs proved effective in inducing governments to reorient
their policy directions.
In the wake of this market-led policy push, the globalization
process accelerated. Henceforth, the development community
would expect all developing country economies to be closely
connected to the mighty engine of the global market. Rather
than correcting for market imperfections through shadow
pricing in the economic analysis of individual projects, policy
makers opted to use projects as levers used to reform the
policies and institutions that created these distortions in the first
place. Throughout the ‘structural adjustment’ era, the project
label would be applied to country-wide and sector-wide
adjustment operations.
In parallel, policy driven project portfolio management at
country level would become a major focus of due diligence. To
this end, aid managers were tasked to adopt the same quality
assurance processes they previously used for individual
projects with conditionality moved to the higher plane of
policy making. Once again, the project concept had proved
adaptable. Projects would henceforth be used as essential
building blocks for policy-based country assistance programs.
In the multi-faceted operating environment that resulted from
the growing preoccupation with country policy and gover-
nance, the economic analysis of projects was complemented by
conditionality reviews backed by multi-disciplinary perfor-
mance assessments at country level.
These would remain in place even after market fundamen-
talism executed a tactical retreat in the 1990's. This is when,
under pressure from a new development coalition led by faith-
based organizations and developing country governments,
carefully orchestrated public opinion campaigns that focused
on debt reduction presaged new development policy directions.
Greater priority to social programs resulted under the aegis of
poverty reduction strategies. Economic conditionality gave way
to social conditionality – which once again gave rise to the
spirited opposition of aid critics.
Externally imposed conditions forced on reluctant govern-
ments, having proved counterproductive, they were de-
emphasized, and replaced by policy dialogue. Ex-ante policy
6
The Washington Consensus is a set of ten economic policy prescriptions
reportedly used as a “standard” policy reform menu by Washington, D.C.–
based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World
Bank, and the US Treasury Department.
6 R. Picciotto / International Journal of Project Management xx (2019) xxx
sticks gave way to ex-post policy carrots. Country based
programmes gradually emerged as the ‘unit of account’ in
development cooperation with preference given to projects
deliberately selected to connect developing countries to the
global economic system.
3.5. Projects as experiments
Policy based projects as well as traditional investment
projects are designed to meet specific social goals through
explicit means. Whether these goals and means are appropriate
and consistent is one of the basic questions that evaluation
seeks to address. At their best, projects are conceived as
experiments geared to a better understanding of society. But
this implies that observed outcomes are indeed due to the
project. Establishing causality is a major challenge. Both
quantitative and qualitative methods have been put to work to
illuminate project impacts. Experimental and quasi-
experimental methods account for exogenous influences, to
recognize confounding factors and to consider explicit and
valid counterfactual scenarios.
Carried out on mature and representative operations,
experimental evaluations of project impacts have become an
integral part of the project evaluation tool kit. But they suffer
from severe limitations. They are costly, poorly adapted to
adaptable interventions, constrained by ethical considerations
and highly demanding in terms of specialized skills. Hence,
they are now carried out selectively and impact evaluations for
projects have come to rely on mixed methods adapted to the
circumstances of individual cases (Stern et al., 2012) Evidently,
nimble, agile approaches to policy experiments contrast with
the exclusive commitment to the randomized control tech-
niques currently fashionable among econometricians (Picciotto,
2012).
3.6. Adaptable processes
Contrasting with conventional project management ap-
proaches, the traditional development project cycle as man-
dated in World Bank guidelines (Baum, 1982; Biggs and
Smith, 2003; Ika et al., 2010; Ika and Hodgson, 2014) gives
proper weight to the front end as well as the back end of project
work. It specifies the due diligence activities required to
achieve good project outcomes: identification, preparation,
appraisal, supervision… and evaluation.
It is the back end of this process (ex-post evaluation) that
demonstrated conclusively that projects perform poorly when
(i) beneficiaries do not participate sufficiently in decision
making; (ii) client countries do not “own” the project; (iii) risks
are inadequately assessed or poorly managed; (iv) local
capacity constraints are not addressed; and (v) project designs
are not adapted to changing conditions in a timely way. A
distinct perspective on the project cycle emerged to take
account of these findings. It emphasized country ownership,
nurturing of commitment by all project participants, adaptabil-
ity of project designs and explicit management of risks.
Please cite this article as: R. Picciotto, Towards a ‘New Project Management’ movement? An international development perspective, International Journal of Project
Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.08.002
The first phase of the new project cycle (Picciotto and
Weaving, 1994) involves listening to country decision makers
and potential beneficiaries to take account of their preferences
and values when selecting goals and shaping project design.
The second phase (piloting) of the new project cycle explores
alternatives and ascertains their risk profiles: it engages in
detailed situation analysis, tests local leadership, strengthens
domestic capacities, and tries out competing approaches and
technologies. The third phase (demonstration) helps to solidify
commitment and ownership, train staff, confirm the hypotheses
identified at the pilot phase, fine tune the project design and set
up management information and monitoring systems. The
fourth phase (mainstreaming) upscales the intervention as
appropriate through gradual and systematic replication of the
approach to benefit from economies of scale.
The ideas embedded in the new project cycle evoke the
“experimenting society” and the piecemeal social engineering
approach visualized by Donald T. Campbell at the origins of
the evaluation discipline.7 They have also inspired the advent
of learning and innovation loans (LILs) and adaptable
program loans (APLs) in to fund innovative interventions
(World Bank, 2001). More recently, the World Bank has added
a Multiphase Programmatic Approach (MPA) to its tool kit. It
allows countries to structure a long, large, or complex
engagement as a set of smaller linked operations (or phases),
under one program. Such innovative approaches to project
design and management are consistent with the pioneering
ideas of ‘New Project Management’ thinkers (Shenhar and
Dvir, 2007).
3.7. The road ahead
Along with open trade, migration and foreign direct
investment, international development projects have brought
national economies closer together, propelled multinational
companies towards developing countries, and provided global
connections for a bewildering variety of non-governmental
organizations. By the turn of the century, poverty reduction had
become the core objective of the development enterprise. All
United Nations members adopted Millennium Development
Goals designed in the first instance to reduce global poverty by
half by the year 2015.8
Suddenly a more comprehensive, multi-disciplinary concep-
tion of development had to be accommodated and projects
followed suit. Under the poverty reduction compact of the
Monterrey consensus9 the problems of others had become our
own. Market based approaches were not abandoned and
economic growth remained an important metric of economic
progress but a more balanced approach to policy reform,
respectful of aid recipients' prerogatives and more sensitive to
the social costs of adjustment, became the norm.
7
An experimenting society is one in which policy-relevant knowledge is
created, critically assessed, and communicated with the aim of discovering
more effective forms of public action and improve the problem- solving
capacities of society. (Dunn, 1997)
8
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/
9
http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/monterrey/MonterreyConsensus.pdf
 R. Picciotto / International Journal of Project Management xx (2019) xxx
According to the United Nations (2015), extreme poverty
has declined dramatically. In 1990, nearly half of the
population in the developing world lived on less than $1.25 a
day; that proportion dropped to 14% in 2015 but by then the
existential threat of climate change, the rapid increase in
income inequality within most countries and the recognition
that pressing and interconnected economic, social, and
environmental problems require global solutions had laid the
groundwork for the adoption of the universal Sustainable
Development Goals in 2015.10
In turn, an even more comprehensive and holistic set of
policy priorities has come centre stage. It emphasizes
environmental and social objectives; embraces whole of
government approaches; and promotes a much greater role for
the private funding of social interventions as well as full
involvement of voluntary sector organizations. Development
projects will henceforth be selected and designed to conform to
the new agenda. They are likely to remain the privileged
instruments of the development enterprise and their design will
continue to be shaped by evaluation using methods aligned
with ever-changing development paradigms. No longer con-
ceived as isolated initiatives, projects are increasingly used as
indispensable instruments of thematic reform programs or as
agile change agents within project portfolios geared to the
management of complex adaptive systems (Sweetman and
Conboy, 2018).
4. Project evaluation has evolved
At the origins of the development enterprise, drawing on the
approach previously used by the US Corps of Engineers to
flood control initiatives, cost-benefit analysis was elaborated,
systematized and pressed into service for development project
selection, appraisal, and ex-post assessment (Congressional
Research Service, 2009). This was intended to ensure that net
contributions to the gross national product are maximized.
For many years, cost-benefit analysis dominated develop-
ment project evaluation and served as an emblem of rationality
and professionalism in the development assistance industry
(Brent, 2000; Ika and Hodgson, 2014; Ika et al., 2010). The
method distilled the knowledge, insights, and tenets of
economics to assess development projects and guide resource
allocation in investment programming. It was congruent with
the construction of gross national production estimates: the
flow of net project benefits measured the value added to the
economy by project investments. An impressive array of
operational guidelines, training manuals and process innova-
tions emerged within international organizations and govern-
ment agencies (Asian Development Bank, 2013).
The cost benefit methodology was attuned to the mindsets of
academics, government planners and aid managers. It provided
a convenient tool for public investment management and aid
delivery. It did not take long for a “host of people serving in
budget bureaus, planning authorities, and all types of ministries
and agencies (among them the World Bank itself) all over the
10
http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/
Please cite this article as: R. Picciotto, Towards a ‘New Project Management’ movement? An international development perspective, International Journal of Project
Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.08.002
7
globe … to see to it that projects not meeting adequate
standards are rejected while those in the social interest are
accepted” (Harberger, 1987).
The new intellectual construct bridged public expenditures
stewardship at the macro level with micro level decision
making. Heroic efforts were deployed to disseminate the
technique, train staff, generate data and estimate shadow prices
designed to account for market imperfections. To be sure,
critics pointed to the prohibitive transaction costs of the
approach, the misleading accuracy of point estimates, the
pervasive data limitations regarding side effects, the multiplic-
ity of risks faced in project implementation and the lack of
comparability of estimates across sectors (Turner, 1979).
Critics also noted that counterfactuals (essential for assessing
the value added by projects) were hard to come by or justify
(Hansson, 2007). Furthermore, the method can easily be
manipulated to justify power holders' decisions. Such objec-
tions provided ample fodder for academic speculation, and they
prevailed when state led approaches to development lost their
lustre.
4.1. The decline of cost-benefit analysis
By the 1970's economic planning was under siege. In the
wake of the debt crisis of the mid-1980's, neoliberalism
triumphed, and a market fundamentalist wave washed over
the aid industry. Since the mid-80's, cost benefit analysis has
been viewed as just one project assessment tool. It is well
adapted to the assessment of physical investments and it is
solidly grounded in public finance theory and welfare
economics. Hence, cost benefit analysis is still recognized as
an integral part of the evaluation tool kit (Florio, 2007), as is its
close cousin – social rate of return analysis that tackles some of
its shortcomings (Canning and Bennathan, 1999; Ika et al.,
2010). But given its manifold limitations and the difficulty of
identifying meaningful counterfactuals, it no longer reigns
supreme in the firmament of development project evaluation.
To be sure cost-benefit analysis is still practiced but it is
used without fanfare and on a modest scale – for about a third
of project interventions. It has had its run as the standard
development effectiveness tool. In part, this is because the
quest for a ranking device to govern project selection in
national planning – one of the major selling points of cost-
benefit analysis – is now thoroughly discredited. Accurate
quantitative measurement, let alone aggregation of the costs
and benefits of side effects, is simply not feasible. Rather, the
art of project management consists in gauging the interplay
between project characteristics and the political and social and
project context and drawing their implications for project
design (Hirschman, 1995; Ika and Soderlund, 2016; Ika, 2018;
Picciotto, 2015).
This means that multiple project assessment considerations
should be brought to bear and that, beyond narrow economic
tests, projects should be appraised from a technical, social,
environmental, and organizational standpoint. Along with their
positive side effects, projects can generate negative side effects
that are hard to capture in cost benefit analysis. They may
8 R. Picciotto / International Journal of Project Management xx (2019) xxx
achieve their goals at great cost to vulnerable groups and the
environment, e.g.: add to climate change risks, contribute to
growing inequality, increase inter-regional or ethnic tensions,
facilitate corruption, etc.
Indeed, over the years, the development scene has featured a
significant number of horror stories (Chiras, 2016). The
negative social and environmental externalities of a large and
misguided infrastructure projects have played into the hands of
aid pessimists and their control freak allies and it has
strengthened the case for increasingly tough quality control
assurances for development project selection, appraisal and
supervision. Just as in medicine, living up to the Hippocratic
Oath of “first, do no harm” has become critical to the political
and social legitimacy of investment projects. Corporate social
responsibility concerns in the private sector evoke the same
preoccupations.
4.2. Towards a flexible project assessment methodology
Just as the results chain and the project cycle were re-shaped
to meet the requirements of changing development perspec-
tives, the cost-benefit instrument was superseded by a wide
range of project evaluation techniques, the judicious admixture
of which can help generate valid project assessments.11 A
broad conception of project evaluation value also permeates the
systems approach that has long been prevalent in the project
management literature (Anbari, 1985).
Development project evaluation criteria geared to practical
realities and supportive of mixed methods emerged in 1992
under the aegis of the Evaluation Network Development
Assistance Committee of the OECD (DAC).12 It stated that a
development intervention can be labelled effective only if it
achieves its relevant objectives efficiently, in a sustainable
fashion and with positive impacts. This common-sense
approach suddenly became indispensable in an operating
context of uncertainty and volatility.
The generic, flexible, qualitative development DAC criteria
invited a wide range of social sciences to the ball. They made
possible systematic assessment of a growing diversity of
project instruments and methods and they proved resilient to
periodic changes in development paradigms (Picciotto, 2013).
The most straightforward DAC project performance test (the
outcome rating) is grounded in the trilogy of relevance,
efficacy, and efficiency. It defines these three criteria as
follows (Ika, 2015, 2018; Ika et al., 2010):
• Relevance: the extent to which the objectives of the
intervention are consistent with the beneficiaries' require-
ments, country needs, global priorities and partners' and
donors' policies
11
This is also when the balanced score card that aims to capture the non-
financial aspects of business performance emerged (http://www.cimaglobal.
com/Documents/ImportedDocuments/Tech_rept_Effective_Performance_Mgt_
with_Balanced_Scd_July_2005.pdf)
12
http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/daccriteriaforevaluatingdevelopment
assistance.htm
Please cite this article as: R. Picciotto, Towards a ‘New Project Management’ movement? An international development perspective, International Journal of Project
Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.08.002
• Efficacy: the extent to which the objectives of the
intervention were achieved or expected to be achieved
taking account of their relative importance13
• Efficiency: a measure of how economically resources/inputs
(funds, expertise, time, etc.) has been converted to results.14
To help compensate for the limitations associated with
outcome ratings awarded soon after project implementation two
important development effectiveness criteria were included in
the DAC development effectiveness tool kit (Ika, 2015, 2018;
Ika et al., 2010, 2012):
• Sustainability: the continuation of benefits from a develop-
ment intervention after major development assistance has
been completed.
• Impact: the positive and negative, primary, and secondary
long-term effects produced by a development intervention,
directly or indirectly, intended or unintended
Relevance is about doing the right things while efficacy and
efficiency are about doing things right. Assessing relevance is
critical: achieving the wrong goals efficiently is counterpro-
ductive. Efficacy is also vital: excellence of goals matters little
if the explicit and tacit vision they embody is not realized.
Efficiency matters too since when excessive costs are incurred
or scarce resources are misallocated, achievement of highly
relevant operational goals cannot qualify as success.
The multi-criteria DAC concepts help to track progress
towards the objectives of project interventions; encourage
project managers to ascertain that the lives of people have been
tangibly improved; and, in a world of constrained budgets,
induce systematic examination of whether the projects being
implemented are making efficient use of resources, i.e. that the
same results could not have been achieved through cheaper
means.
The relevance, sustainability, and impact criteria are what
most distinguish evaluation from traditional auditing. Achiev-
ing full consistency with beneficiaries' felt needs, country
policies, donor requirements and global priorities in one fell
swoop is rarely feasible. Trade-offs must be struck, and
selectivity practiced lest goals become unrealistically ambitious
(so that failure to achieve them may not be significant) or
project designs become so complex that operational efficacy
and/or efficiency are threatened – the “Christmas tree”
syndrome (Kessides, 1997).
Equally efficacy judgments should be used judiciously.
They should not be wielded to penalise operations that do not
meet overambitious goals especially if the project delivered
value for money by making judicious use of scarce resources
13
The term “effectiveness” is commonly used to signify the achievement of
intended goals without significant shortcomings. However, the DAC glossary
mentions “efficacy” as an alternative term in a footnote. This is the term used in
this paper to preserve the comprehensive meaning of “development effective-
ness” to signify economic and sustainable achievement of relevant goals and
development impact.
14
Value for money and cost effectiveness are terms often used interchange-
ably with the term efficiency
 R. Picciotto / International Journal of Project Management xx (2019) xxx
compared to the alternatives. Finally, the widespread aspiration
to achieve durable results means that assessing impact and
sustainability are critical dimensions of project effectiveness.
This is where ex-ante project analysis is at its most
demanding and speculative. It is only through ex-post impact
analysis that reliable judgments can be reached regarding the
impact of various exogenous and unpredictable factors that
invariably affect project results. This is also where the social
learning benefits are the highest.
4.3. Assessing partners' performance
While the five DAC criteria would be useful in project
management mainstream practice, they do not meet the full
requirements of project management since they blur account-
ability. Free riding is a pervasive threat to the success of any
project. Virtually all projects rely on partnerships to achieve
outcomes (Liebenthal et al., 2004).
Unless explicit reciprocal obligations among partners are
specified and kept current, responsibility for failure may be
shirked altogether by summarily attributing unsatisfactory
results to poor partner performance while responsibility for
success may be unfairly captured by one of the partners –
irrespective of the value of actual contributions towards shared
objectives.
In other words, if partners' performance at various levels is
not assessed, moral hazard is bound to prevail. Owners should
therefore take explicit account of partners' distinct contributions
to project outcomes. When project failure is ascribed entirely to
the implementing agency (irrespective of exogenous influences
and of partners' contributions) it induces risk aversion: it may
even encourage suspension of projects that fail to meet
ambitious goals thus forsaking the opportunity of adapting
them so that they can succeed.
It follows that project assessment should go beyond
answering the question of whether a project works or not
(Ika, 2018).15 Along with outcome, sustainability, and impact
ratings, decision makers should equip projects with objective
monitoring indicators that focus on performance ratings. The
extent to which various partners have lived up to the distinctive
responsibilities and reciprocal obligations embedded in pro-
jects. Not all development assistance agencies have recognized
this imperative.
The World Bank and other multilateral development banks
have done so: rather than limiting their evaluative focus to the
attribution question (can the outcomes observed be ascribed to
the project?) they also routinely address the contribution
question – how well did the individual development partners
perform towards the achievement of project objectives and
what might be done to improve their performance? (Ika and
Lytvynov, 2011).
15
As of this writing, the DAC criteria are under review. Some influential aid
donors are pressing for inclusion of new criteria such as significance (to judge
the transformative effects and importance of interventions) and coherence (to
ascertain the alignment of aid projects to non-aid development cooperation
interventions, e.g. migration)
Please cite this article as: R. Picciotto, Towards a ‘New Project Management’ movement? An international development perspective, International Journal of Project
Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.08.002
9
5. Conclusions and recommendations
In line with the purpose of this special issue, this article
aimed to broaden the exchange between project management
thinkers and international development practitioners by draw-
ing on the history of development cooperation. It confirms that
continuous and objective examination of the pertinence,
realism and resilience of project goals through monitoring and
evaluation should be a critical dimension of project manage-
ment. International development projects have been versatile
tools of social action. They have served human development in
all sectors of the developing world. The broader project
management community, both scholars and practitioners,
would benefit from the lessons of development experience.
First, development practitioners and thinkers had from the
very start conceived of projects as the building blocks of
forward-looking social programs, as policy levers and as
incubators of innovation. This mandate is consistent with the
call for reconsidering the traditional project management
agenda of the contemporary project management literature: it
is time to stop selling short the project management discipline
and consigning it to the conceptual straitjacket of rigid goal
achievement for isolated interventions.
Second, the new operating environment for projects
everywhere is increasingly unstable, turbulent and shaped by
diverse and vocal interests. Thus, the development economics
literature and the rich lessons of development projects
implemented in volatile, complex and crisis ridden contexts
are now highly relevant to developed countries. Adaptable
project management processes, systems thinking as well as
experimental approaches to the project cycle should be
adopted, as appropriate.
Third, the mainstream project management occupation,
despite its longstanding interest in the project success topic
(Ika, 2015, 2018) has neglected a major feature of organiza-
tional and social learning: evaluation. This meta-discipline – a
transmission belt between the social sciences and the nitty
gritty world of project management – has long been an essential
instrument of quality enhancement in the administration of
development projects. Here again, there is room for enriching
the menu of the ‘New Project Management’ agenda.
Fourth, whereas traditional project management has been
heavily shaped by the public administration and organizational
science disciplines, the new authorizing and strategic environ-
ment for projects calls for stronger connections to all the social
sciences, another reason for embracing evaluation as transmis-
sion belt between decision-making and the academy.
Fifth, the development projects experience demonstrates that
the joint imperatives of accountability and learning are best
observed through the application of sensible performance
criteria rather than by succumbing to indicator fetishism and
the lure of complex metrics. Use of the time-tested DAC criteria
have been shown to matter to the success of projects. They
were forged through hard won lessons of experience. They
should supplant traditional project management approaches that
mistakenly concentrate on inputs and outputs without much
attention to outcomes or impacts.
10 R. Picciotto / International Journal of Project Management xx (2019) xxx
5.1. An agenda for research
Given the above, the following project management research
domains may deserve further exploration:
1) The role of evaluation as a transmission belt between the
social sciences and the project management discipline
2) The role played by the DAC criteria in promoting durable
impact and sustainability in the international development
sphere and the implications for the overall project manage-
ment discipline (see Ika, 2015, 2018; Ika et al., 2010, 2012)
3) Given the well-recognized challenges of complexity in the
operating environment (Morris, 2013; Shenhar and Dvir,
2007), the lessons of international development projects in
volatile, complex and crisis ridden contexts that may be
relevant to the broader project management discipline, e.g.
with respect to the project cycle, experimentalism, scaling
up, etc. (Hirschman, 1995; Rondinelli, 1993; Picciotto,
2012)
5.2. Lessons learned
Projects have served the development enterprise well over
several decades. Despite numerous policy gyrations, they have
remained the privileged instrument of development assistance.
Evaluation mechanisms have been instrumental in guiding
strategic project selection and improving organizational learn-
ing. Six practical recommendations broadly consistent with the
thrust of contemporary project management scholarship emerge
from the above narrative.
5.2.1. Lesson 1: reach beyond the results chain
Reliance on the logical framework helps to focus on results
and it has great value in ensuring that success indicators are
identified and tracked but it leaves wide open questions about
the relevance of project goals and the justification of the means
used to pursue them. Resort to program theory that privileges
impact in the public interest and distinguishes between theories
of action that link input, to outputs and outcomes (involving
factors over which project management has significant control)
and theories of change that address the transformation of
outcomes into impact (which largely depend on contextual
factors) is critically important. Systems theory, complexity
thinking, and network analysis should be put to work.
5.2.2. Lesson 2: treat projects as falsifiable conjectures
The theory-based approach to projects of Lesson 1 makes
systematic learning possible through experimentation. Through
refutation of the various conjectures embedded in project
design (made visible by theories of action and change), projects
are gradually adapted to the operating environment to meet
project beneficiaries' expectations. In this context, use of the
new project cycle that gives pride of place to listening, piloting,
demonstration and mainstreaming helps to manage risks by
gradually shaping and reshaping projects to achieve success.
Please cite this article as: R. Picciotto, Towards a ‘New Project Management’ movement? An international development perspective, International Journal of Project
Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.08.002
5.2.3. Lesson 3: adopt sensible project evaluation criteria
In any sector, a project ought not to be rated successful
unless it achieves its relevant objectives efficiently, in a
sustainable fashion and with positive impacts, including side
effects. This recommendation is consistent with a systematic
approach to project assessment that examines the extent to
which:
(i) project objectives are consistent with beneficiaries'
requirements and the authorizing environment
(relevance);
(ii) the objectives of the intervention were achieved or are
expected to be achieved taking account of their relative
importance (efficacy);
(iii) resources used by the project are expected to be
converted to results as economically as possible
(efficiency);
(iv) project benefits are likely to be sustained (sustainability);
and
(v) project results including unintended and side effects are
positive and significant for society over the long term
(impact).
5.2.4. Lesson 4: assess partners' performance to improve
collective impact
Projects invariably require collaboration and participation by
many actors. They often involve a bundle of contractual
arrangements that specify the reciprocal obligations and
distinctive roles of each major partner to discourage free-
riding. While overall results (attribution) should be a major
focus of project evaluation, project management practices
should be designed and used to promote cooperation and
generate incentives for superior performance by all partners.
Hence, for accountability to be strengthened and for principled
partnerships to flourish, the expected contributions of each
individual partners to overall outcomes and impacts should be
specified upfront and assessed objectively and regularly
through judiciously selected indicators. This is essential to
ensure coherence, equity and effectiveness in pursuit of
collective impact.
5.2.5. Lesson 5: resort to multi-method, multidisciplinary
approaches
Given the segmentation of knowledge prevalent in the
academy, project management education should give pride of
place to capturing these and other lessons of international
development thinking and experience. Projects cannot be
properly managed without resort to the right mix of disciplinary
approaches and assessment methods. Use of success indicators
cannot substitute for systematic access to pertinent sector and
local knowledge since the choice of relevant indicators is itself
dependent on such knowledge.
5.2.6. Lesson 6: combine project self-evaluation with indepen-
dent evaluation
Adequate familiarity with the evaluator's toolkit should be a
standard competency for project designers and managers.
 R. Picciotto / International Journal of Project Management xx (2019) xxx
Project managers fly blind without access to timely and reliable
information about project results. Overcoming information
asymmetry is a critical requirement of effective project
management. It follows that project managers should have
ready access to professional monitoring and evaluation
services. But they should also recognize that self-evaluation
reports are inevitably biased and lack public credibility so that
periodic independent evaluation is good project management
practice.
A final word. Geraldi and Soderlund (2018) call for practice-
oriented yet reflective pieces of research. The embryonic ‘New
Project Management’ coalition will help the leaders and foot
soldiers of the project management discipline to confront the
tough challenges they face in an increasingly demanding and
uncertain operational environment. Conversely, there is little
doubt that the pioneering intellectual contributions of the ‘New
Project Management’ literature would greatly enhance the
quality of international development practice. But this is
another story.
References
Anbari, F.T., 1985. A systems approach to project evaluation. Proj. Manag. J.
16 (3), 21–26.
Andersen, E.S., 2014. Two perspectives on project management. In: Lundin,
Rolf A., Hällgren, Markus (Eds.), Advancing Research on Projects and
Temporary Organizations. Copenhagen Business School Press, Copenha-
gen, pp. 140–149.
Arndt, H.W., 1987. Economic Development: The History of an Idea. University
of Chicago Press, Chicago US and London UK.
Asian Development Bank, 2013. Cost-Benefit Analysis for Development: A
Practical Guide. Mandaluyong City, Philippines https://www.adb.org/sites/
default/files/institutional-document/33788/files/cost-benefit-analysis-
development.pdf.
Baum, W.C., 1982. The Project Cycle. World Bank, Washington, DC http://
documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/696601478501928227/The-World-Bank-
project-cycle.
Bergmann, T., Karwowski, W., 2018. Agile project management and project
success: a literature review. AHFE 2018: Advances in Human Factors,
Business Management and Society, Part of the Advances in Intelligence
Systems and Computing Book Series. vol. 783. AISC, pp. 405–414.
Biggs, S., Smith, S., 2003. A paradox of learning in project cycle management
and the role of organizational culture. World Dev. 31 (10), 1743–1757.
Brent, R.J., 2000. Cost-Benefit Analysis for Developing Countries. Edward
Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham, UK.
Canning, D., Bennathan, E., 1999. The Social Rate of Return on Infrastructure
Investments. Policy Research Working Paper. November. World Bank,
Washington DC https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-2390#.
Chiras, D.D., 2016. Environmental Science. Tenth edition. Jones and Bartlett
Publishers, Burlington MA.
Congressional Research Service, 2009. Principles and Guidelines for Evaluat-
ing Federal Water Projects: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Planning and the
Use of Benefit Cost Analysis. Final Report, August. A course capstone
project from the Evans School of Public Affairs. University of Washington
https://fas.org/irp/agency/dhs/fema/evans.pdf.
Dasgupta, P., 1987. Comment. In: Meier, Gerald M. (Ed.), Pioneers in
Development, Second Series. Oxford University Press, New York A World
Bank Publication.
Deming, W.E., 1994. Out of the Crisis. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Drucker, P., 1954. The Practice of Management. Harper, New York
Heinemann, London, UK.
Dunn, N.W. (Ed.), 1997. The Experimenting Society: Essays in Honour of
Donald T. Campbell. Transaction Publishers, Piscataway, NJ.
Please cite this article as: R. Picciotto, Towards a ‘New Project Management’ movement? An international development perspective, International Journal of Project
Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.08.002
11
Engwall, M., 2003. No project is an island: linking projects to history and
context. Res. Policy 32, 789–808.
Fells, M.J., 2000. Fayol stands the test of time. J. Manag. Hist. 6 (8), 345–360.
Florio, M., 2007. Cost-Benefit Analysis and Incentives in Evaluation. The
Structural Funds of the European Union. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
Gantt, H.L., 1919. Organizing for Work. Harcourt, Brace, and Howe, New
York, NY.
Geraldi, J., Soderlund, J., 2018. Project studies: what it is, where it is going. Int.
J. Proj. Manag. 36 (1), 55–70.
Golini, T., Kalchschmidt, M., Landoni, P., 2015. Adoption of project
management practices: the impact on international development projects
of non-governmental organizations. Int. Proj. Manag. 33, 650–663.
Gruening, G., 2001. Origin and theoretical basis of new public management.
Int. Public Manag. J. 4, 1–25.
Hällgren, M., Nilsson, A., Blomquist, T., Söderholm, A., 2012. Relevance lost!
A critical review of project management standardisation. Int. J. Manag. Proj.
Bus. 5 (3), 457–485.
Hansson, S.O., 2007. Philosophical problems in cost-benefit analysis. Econ.
Philos. 23 (2), 163–183.
Harberger, A.C., 1987. Reflections on social project evaluation. In: Meier, M.G.
(Ed.), Pioneers in Development. World Bank/Publication and Oxford
University Press Second Series.
Hirschman, A.O., 1995. Development Projects Observed. Brookings Institu-
tion, Washington DC.
Ika, L.A., 2012. Project management for development in Africa: why projects
are failing and what can be done about it. Proj. Manag. J. 43 (4), 27–41.
Ika, L.A., 2015. Opening the black box of project management: does World
Bank project supervision influence project impact? Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33,
1111–1123.
Ika, L., 2018. Beneficial or detrimental ignorance: the straw man Fallacy of
Flyvbjerg's test of Hirschman's hiding hand. World Dev. 103, 369–382.
Ika, L., Diallo, A., Thuillier, D., 2012. Critical success factors of World Bank
projects: An empirical investigation. Int. J. Proj. Manag. (Elsevier).
Ika, L.A., Hodgson, D., 2014. Learning for international development projects:
blending critical project studies and critical development studies. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 32, 1182–1196.
Ika, L., Lytvynov, V., 2011. The “management-per-result” approach to
international development design. Proj. Manag. J. 42 (4), 87–104.
Ika, L.A., Soderlund, J., 2016. Rethinking revisited: insights from an early
rethinker. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 9 (4), 931–954.
Ika, L.A., Diallo, A., Thuillier, D., 2010. Project management in the
international development industry. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 3 (1), 61–93.
Kapsali, M., 2011. Systems thinking in innovation project management: a
match that works. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 29, 396–407.
Kessides, C., 1997. World Bank Experience with the Provision of Infrastructure
Services for the Urban Poor: Preliminary Identification and Review of Best
Practices. ESD Staff. World Bank, Washington DC http://siteresources.
worldbank.org/INTEMPOWERMENT/Resources/10142_urban.pdf.
Kopczyński, T., Brzozowski, M., 2015. Systems thinking in project manage-
ment: theoretical framework and empirical evidence from Polish companies.
Zeszyty Naukowe. Seria: Administracja i Zarządzanie 107, 79–88. http://
www.tstefaniuk.uph.edu.pl/zeszyty/archiwalne/107-2015_7.pdf.
Lewis, A., 1984. Development economics in the 1950's. In: Meier, M.G., Seers,
D. (Eds.), Pioneers in Development. World Bank and Oxford University
Press, New York.
Liebenthal, A., et al. (Eds.), 2004. Evaluation and Development: The
Partnership Dimension. Transaction Publishers, Piscataway, NJ.
Lindkvist, L., Soderlund, J., Tell, F., 1998. Managing product development projects:
on the significance of fountains and deadlines. Organ. Stud. 19 (6), 931–951.
Lundin, R.A., Soderholm, A., 1995. A theory of the temporary organization.
Scand. J. Manag. 11, 437–455.
Moran, M., Stone, D., 2016. The new philanthropy: private power in
international development policy? 297-313. In: Grugel, Jean, Hammett,
Dan (Eds.), The Handbook of International Development. Palgrave
MacMillan, London UK.
Morris, P.W.G., 2011. A brief history of Project Management. In: Morris, W.
G., Pinto, J., Söderlund, J. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Project
Management Oxford UK.
12 R. Picciotto / International Journal of Project Management xx (2019) xxx
Morris, P.W.G., 2013. Reconstructing Project Management. Wiley Blackwell,
Hoboken NJ.
Moylan, W.A., Walker, L.W., 2012. Ethics in Project Management, research on
values based leadership in project driven arenas. Proj. Manag. World J. I
(III), 1–29.
Natsios, A., 2010. The Clash of the Counter-Bureaucracy and Development, Essay.
Centre for Global Development, Washington, DC, July https://www.cgdev.org/
sites/default/files/1424271_file_Natsios_Counterbureaucracy.pdf.
Osborne, D., Gaebler, T., 1992. Reinventing Government. Addison Wesley,
Reading, MA.
Picciotto, R., 2012. Experimentalism and development evaluation: will the
bubble burst? Evaluation. 1–17.
Picciotto, R., 2013. The logic of development effectiveness: is it time for the
broader evaluation community to take notice? Evaluation 19 (2), 155–170.
Picciotto, R., 2015. Hirschman's ideas as evaluation tools. J. Multidiscip Eval. 11
(24), 1–11. http://journals.sfu.ca/jmde/index.php/jmde_1/article/view/416.
Picciotto, R., Weaving, R., 1994. A new project cycle for the World Bank?
Finan. Dev. 31 (4), 42–44 International Monetary Fund. Washington DC.
Project Management Institute, 2013. A Guide to the Project Management Body
of Knowledge (PMOK Guide). Fifth Edition. January. Newton Square,
Pennsylvania.
Richardson, G.L., 2010. Project Management Theory and Practice. Taylor and
Francis, Boca Raton, Florida.
Rondinelli, A.D., 1993. Development Projects as Policy Experiments: An
Adaptive Approach to Development Administration. Second edition.
Routledge, Abingdon-on-Thames UK.
Rosenstein-Rodan, P.N., 1984. Natura facit saltum: analysis of the disequilibrium
growth process. In: Meier, M.G., Seers, D. (Eds.), Pioneers in Development.
Oxford University Press, New York A World Bank Publication.
Sen, A., 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Seymour, T., Hussein, S., 2014. The history of project management. Int.
J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 18 (4), 233–240.
Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., 2007. Reinventing Project Management: The Diamond
Approach to Successful Growth and Innovation. Harvard Business School
Press, Boston MA.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2011. Jean Paul Sartre. https://plato.
stanford.edu/entries/sartre/.
Stern, E., Stame, N., Mayne, J., Forss, K., Davies, R., Befani, B., 2012.
Broadening the range of designs and methods for impact evaluations.
Please cite this article as: R. Picciotto, Towards a ‘New Project Management’ movement? An international development perspective, International Journal of Project
Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.08.002
Report of a Study Commissioned by the Department for International
Development, Working paper 38 http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/
publications1/design-method-impact-eval.pdf.
Svejvig, P., Andersen, P., 2015. Rethinking project management: a structured
literature review with a critical look at the brave new world. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 33, 278–290.
Sweetman, R., Conboy, K., 2018. Portfolio of agile projects: a complex
adaptive systems' agent perspective. Proj. Manag. J. 49 (6), 18–38.
Sydow, J., Braun, T., 2017. Projects as temporary organizations: an agenda for
further theorizing the interorganizational dimension. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
1–22.
Turner, R.K., 1979. Cost-benefit analysis – a critique. Omega 7 (5), 411–419.
United Nations, 2015. The Millennium Development Goals Report. New York,
p. 4. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%
202015%20rev%20(July%201).pdf.
Van Marrewijk, A., 2018. Digging for change: change and resistance in
interorganizational projects in the utilities sector. Proj. Manag. J. 49 (3),
34–45.
World Bank, 1967. Livestock development project. Brazil, Projects Depart-
ment, Report TO-583. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/
650511468236669856/Brazil-Livestock-Development-Project.
World Bank, 1991. Agricultural Extension and Research in India. Operations
Evaluation Department, Washington DC Precis No. 5. documents.
worldbank.org/curated/en/.../292340Precis50Eng.doc.
World Bank, 1998. India's Dairy Revolution. Operations Evaluation Depart-
ment, Washington DC Precis. 168. http://documents.worldbank.org/
curated/en/643881468750024505/Indias-dairy-revolution.
World Bank, 2001. World Bank Lending Instruments: Resources for
Development Impact. World Bank. Operations Policy, and Country
Services http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTBULGARIA/Resources/
Lending_Instr_Eng.pdf.
World Bank, 2017. The World Bank Environmental and Social Framework.
Washington DC. http://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/environmental-
and-social-policies-for-projects/brief/the-environmental-and-social-frame-
work-esf.
Young, R., Young, M., Jordan, E., O'Connor, P., 2012. Is strategy being
implemented through projects? Contrary evidence from a leader in new
public management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 30, 887–900.