International Journal of Construction Management

ISSN: 1562-3599 (Print) 2331-2327 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjcm20

Sustainability management of international

development projects by International Non-
Governmental Organizations: the case of INGOs
working with refugees in Jordan

Anan Samara, Rateb J. Sweis, Bashar Darawneh, Wassim Albalkhy, Ghaleb

Sweis & Salam Alhomsi

To cite this article: Anan Samara, Rateb J. Sweis, Bashar Darawneh, Wassim Albalkhy, Ghaleb
Sweis & Salam Alhomsi (2020): Sustainability management of international development projects
by International Non-Governmental Organizations: the case of INGOs working with refugees in
Jordan, International Journal of Construction Management, DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2020.1741490

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1741490

Published online: 23 Mar 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjcm20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1741490

Sustainability management of international development projects by International

Non-Governmental Organizations: the case of INGOs working with refugees
in Jordan
Anan Samaraa, Rateb J. Sweisb, Bashar Darawneha, Wassim Albalkhya, Ghaleb Sweisa and Salam Alhomsia
a
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan; bDepartment of Business Management, The University of Jordan,
Amman, Jordan

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Sustainability is one of the most significant challenges in International Development (ID) projects. This Project management tools;
research aims to study the role of Project Management (PM) tools in promoting the adoption of sustain- sustainability strategies;
ability strategies in the ID projects by International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs). A quantita- international development
projects; INGOs; Jordan
tive approach was used to collect data through an online questionnaire completed by 84 respondents
who occupy managerial positions in the ID projects in Jordan. The results of this study indicate a moder-
ate adoption of PM tools and high adoption of sustainability strategies in ID projects in Jordan. The
results also show all the PM tools are positively correlated with sustainability strategies, but only “Work
breakdown structure” and “Risk analysis” positively affect the adoption of sustainability strategies. The
study concludes that by increasing the investment in developing sustainability practices and PM know-
ledge for project managers, an increase in sustainability knowledge and a better sustainability perform-
ance might be achieved. With the lack of similar studies in the humanitarian field, this study tries to
provide evidence for the relationship between PM and sustainability.

Introduction outcomes to communities (Diriye 2014). In addition, NGOs are

required to provide International Development projects (ID proj-
In recent decades, there has been a significant increase in the
ects) whose objectives are not limited only to provide one-time
number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) around the
aid to the needing communities, but also to achieve sustainability
globe (Aldashev and Verdier 2010; Dahan et al. 2010). This
and make the needy capable of managing themselves
increase is a result of the growing need for international develop-
(Ovasdi 2006).
ment projects worldwide and the rising demands for inter-
The Increasing numbers of NGOs and INGOs and the
national humanitarian assistance to transform social and
increasing complexity draw new attention to INGOs to
economic victims
lives resulting from natural and man-made dis-
strengthen their organizational capacities to meet growing needs
asters (Gellert 1996; Edwards et al. 1999; UNDP 2014).
of the community and to ensure the long-term sustainability of
Consequently, the growing number of NGOs causes an increase
their projects (Edwards et al. 1999; Ika et al. 2012; Bebbington
in the competition between these organizations for donor fund-
et al. 2013; UNDP 2014).
ing, for state funding, internationally and with the private sector
To promote the capability of NGOs’ projects to sustain and
(Ly and Mason 2012; Marshall et al. 2012; Nunnenkamp and
€ succeed, project management (PM) is considered as a key stand
Ohler 2012). The competition for donors is obviously the most
of NGOs’ organizational capacity development since NGOs’
challenging problem for NGOs (Aldashev and Verdier 2009).
activities are project-based as they are meant to be temporary
Nevertheless, this type of funding, which is regarded as the pri-
interventions to meet immediate community needs with add-
mary source of money for many NGOs, is not often adequate
for NGOs to meet communities’ needs and the rising project itional temporary activities to build internal capacity in the com-
costs (Viravaidya and Hayssen 2001). In addition, the uncer- munity to meet future demands (Ika 2012). Some studies agreed
tainty of funds over time and the imposed restrictions on many that PM techniques, tools, and methods (Munns and Bjeirmi
donations and grants make it more complex for NGOs to 1996; Clarke 1999; Mingus 2002), along with project planning
improve their services and do long-term planning (Nunnenkamp are important for the successful implementation of international
€
and Ohler 2012; Chahim and Prakash 2014; Khieng and development projects (Belassi and Tukel 1996; Dvir and Lechler
Dahles 2015). 2004; Ika et al. 2012).
Furthermore, NGOs suffer to meet the frequent complex
demands arising from the current external social, economic and Research problem
climate setting that can be described as a turbulent external
environment (Bebbington et al. 2013; Banks et al. 2015). A con- The two topics of “sustainability” and “project management”
siderable number of NGO projects fail to deliver satisfactory have been addressed separately in countless studies, however,

CONTACT Rateb J. Sweis r.sweis@ju.edu.jo; rateb.sweis@gmail.com

ß 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 A. SAMARA ET AL.
there are still very few studies that tackle the relationship and
the interaction between these two topics (Martens and Carvalho
2017). Furthermore, whereas most of the studies about the inte-
gration between sustainability and project management focused
on the general relationship or the relationship in the business
sectors (Turner and M€ uller 2003; Brent and Labuschagne 2006;
Gareis et al. 2009, 2013; Silvius et al. 2009; Brones et al. 2014;
Martens and Carvalho 2016, 2017). The NGOs sector still has
not witnessed sufficient similar studies. In addition, there cur-
rently exists a research gap in evaluating how sustainability is
managed in NGOs in general and ID projects in particular
(Aarseth et al. 2017). Thus, this study will fulfill this gap and
develop a critical understanding of the nature of PM practices in
INGOs and its relationship with project sustainability strategies.
Accordingly, this study has the following research questions
(RQs) to answer:
RQ1: What are the levels of adoption of PM tools in the ID projects
in INGOs in Jordan?
RQ2: What are the levels of adoption of sustainability strategies in the
ID projects in INGOs in Jordan?
RQ3: How can PM Tools support the adoption of sustainability
strategies in the ID projects in INGOs in Jordan?
Research setting
In the last few years, Jordan continued to face spillover effects
from the neighboring conflicts in Syria and Iraq. The country
also experienced ongoing political and economic challenges such
as the high unemployment rate and the large population of refu-
gees (Fallah et al. 2019). By 2014, the Zaatari refugee camp had
become Jordan’s fourth-largest population center, and in April of
the same year, the government opened a second camp near
Azraq town (Alshawawreh et al. 2017). Furthermore, Jordan has
been a destination for ID projects for many years (Wiktorowicz
2002; Simadi and Almomani 2008).
With the long experience and a large number of the INGOs
in Jordan, and with the challenging situation in this country that
has very limited resources, it might be convenient to answer the
questions of this study by choosing Jordan as a targeted place to
be conducted in.
Additionally, According to Ghreiz (2020), most NGOs in
Jordan have shifted their approaches toward projects that are
directed to refugees in Jordan, accordingly, the sustainability of
all humanitarian projects has become a barrier in sectors that are
influenced by the refugees’ influx. Therefore, it is worthy to
study the current sustainability strategies in this type of project
and the effect of PM practices on these strategies.
NGOs and INGOs
NGOs can be classified on the basis of the geographical range of
activities where they involved in: a) community-based organiza-
tions, which serve a specific population in a narrow geographical
area. b) city-wide organizations that are relatively bigger than
community-based organizations and serve at the district or
regional level within the country. c) National organizations,
which operate in individual developing countries. d)
International organizations (INGOs), which are typically head-
quartered in developed countries and carry out activities in
developing countries (Bayat 1996).
INGOs are non-governmental organizations that are non-
profit and have an independent administrative body operating in
more than one country and influencing the economic and social
changes at the global level. Therefore, an INGO can be defined
as an organization that takes part in charitable activities, operates
across borders and has similar features of NGOs (Beisheim et al.
2018; Davies 2019).
INGOs are one of the main economical tributaries through
implementing the International Development (ID) projects
(Davies 2019). However, these projects have a very low rate of
stability as demonstrated by the high project failure rate found
in these contexts (Hermano et al. 2013). Extra costs, delays, and
quality problems are not the only measures affecting failure in
ID projects but also can be neglecting long-term goals and their
impact on the society and sustainability (Ika et al. 2012). That
drew the researchers’ attention to investigate the effect of PM
tools in developing the sustainability of the ID projects
by INGOs.
Literature review
Project management tools in NGOs and ID projects
NGOs deliver complex social, physical and economic interven-
tions in which measuring outcomes is very difficult. Because of
that, NGOs face some challenges in monitoring and evaluating
these projects using several approaches developed within indus-
tries that deliver tangible outcomes (Dedu et al. 2011). Another
challenge is that NGO projects are required to take part in vari-
ous stakeholders such as beneficiaries, donors and host commun-
ities (Easterly 2009), who need to be officially consulted during
the whole process. Adaptation to project systems, tools, proc-
esses, and activities is required to meet the demands of these
stakeholders while operating in difficult country environments
(Shleifer 2009; Ika et al. 2012). Therefore, it is very important to
apply specific and solid project management practices for
humanitarian projects. Particularly for their high stakeholder
involvement, increasing complexity, non-profit nature and dis-
tinctive success factors exclusively identified to NGOs’ projects
(Ika et al. 2012; Hermano et al. 2013; Golini et al. 2015).
PM and ID projects share two main attributes; the first is the
concern of change, while the second heavily relies on the project
to achieve the needed change (Ika et al. 2018). In recent decades,
more work has been done to show the interaction between the
two fields (Ika et al. 2018). Especially with the direction of PM
from looking at “the narrow execution-oriented management”
and the focus to do the project right, toward doing things right
and the inclusion of more strategic and complex needs that ID
projects usually work with (e.g., delivering benefits to stakehold-
ers and end-users) (Ika et al. 2018). ID projects provide some
practices to PM such as logical framework, feasibility study, and
result-based management. In turn, PM delivers some tools such
as critical path method and scope management to be used in ID
projects (Biggs and Smith 2003; Ika 2012; Golini et al. 2015; Ika
et al. 2018).
There are two main research strands about project manage-
ment in NGOs and ID projects. The first stream is studying the
impact of PM on the NGO’s project outcomes, and the second is
investigating the adoption of project management tools and
methodologies NGOs projects (Nanthagopan et al. 2016). The lit-
erature shows that both strands still need further work to be
done in comparison to the research about PM in other sectors.
Reviewing the literature also shows that the second strand
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 3

Table 1. Mean scores for the responses on items of PM tools variable.

Project Management (PM) Tools Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Average mean
Progress report 4.08 4.43 4.18
Logical Framework 3.98 4.35 4.08
Cost Accounting 3.54 4.17 3.71
Responsibility Assignment Matrix 3.38 4.48 3.68
Gantt diagram 3.36 4.22 3.60
Work Breakdown Structure 3.25 4.35 3.55
Milestone Schedule 3.10 4.35 3.44
Organizational Breakdown Structure 2.97 4.22 3.31
Scope Management (tracking change requests, etc.) 2.85 4.35 3.26
Stakeholder Analysis Matrix 2.85 4.04 3.18
Communication Plan 2.75 4.26 3.17
Contingency allocation 2.69 4.09 3.07
Risk Analysis 2.62 3.87 2.96
Issue Log 2.39 4.13 2.87
Critical Path Method 2.33 4.17 2.83
Earned Value Management System 2.36 3.83 2.76
Number of participants 61 23 84
% 72.6 27.4 100.0

included a tremendous focus on the logical framework
(Hermano et al. 2013; Golini et al. 2017; 2018; Rodrıguez-Rivero
et al. 2019) and neglected the focus on other tools.
Golini and Landoni (2013) and Golini et al. (2015) conducted
a review of major reference guides in PM generally (e.g.,
PMBOKV R Guide) along with the ID project field (e.g., PM4DEV,
PM4NGOs), and identify 16 PM tool that can be applied in ID
projects. The same list was adopted by Czahajda (2019) in Polish
non-profit organizations and by Verga Matos et al. (2019) in the
Portuguese non-governmental development organizations. This
study uses the same list of tools as a first study to try to investi-
gate a set of PM tools INGOs ID projects in Jordan and in the
Middle East (Table 1).
Project sustainability strategies
Picciotto (2019) defined sustainability in ID projects as “the con-
tinuation of benefits from a development intervention after major
development assistance has been completed”. With more than 100
definitions available for sustainability, many scholars have been
working on emphasizing three pillars of sustainable development:
Simultaneously balance social, environmental and economic goals
(Gachie 2019). More studies have demonstrated that certain gov-
ernment requirements for companies executing projects will lead
to sustainable development in the host country. For example,
through developing action plans, strategies and performance
indicators (Yanarella and Bartilow 2000).
Strategies are defined as directions and plans to succeed while
choosing different activities to deliver value (Porter 1996), and
then sustainability strategies deal specifically with opportunities
and challenges of sustainability. It is crucial for organizations to
define and understand the strategic and business perspectives to
generate sustainable competitive advantage and to face the com-
petitive turbulent environment (Johnson et al. 2008; Killen et al.
2012; Jenkins and Williamson 2015). These perspectives are
designed to ensure organizations’ long-term sustainability in the
market and to improve their performance (Barney 2002; Jenkins
and Williamson 2015). Considering the above studies, these stra-
tegic perspectives may also support INGOs to sustain themselves
in the community for a long period as they currently operate in
similar complex and competitive circumstances.
Aarseth et al. (2017) conducted a systematic literature review
covering all research published in five leading journals in the
fields of sustainable production and project management prior to
2016. Based on studding 68 articles, Aarseth et al. (2017) identi-
fied eight sustainability strategies as follows:

Three strategies that can be adopted by project organization,
which are “setting strategic and tactical sustainability goals”,
“Developing sustainable supplier practices”, and
“Emphasizing sustainability in project design”. These three
strategies were improved aiming at ensuring the inclusion of
sustainability as a part of project management.

Two strategies that are adopted by the host, which refers to
any actor that is linked to the local and/or geographical con-
text of where the project is implemented. The two strategies
are “Setting sustainability policies strategy” and “Influencing
sustainability of project practices”. The first strategy focuses
on the host efforts on establishing norms, laws, regulations,
and guidelines that promote the sustainability of the project.
While the second focuses on the way to incorporate sustain-
ability into projects through different systems and solutions
such as waste management and prefabrication.

There strategies that are mutually adopted by the project
and host organizations. The first strategy is the “Inclusion of
sustainability-promoting actors in project organization”,
which is relevant to the inclusion of local public, authorities,
and NGOs in project-related decision-making along with
planning, developing and executing various projects. The
second strategy in this section is “Developing sustainability
competencies”, as increased sustainability knowledge will
lead to a better sustainability performance of both project
owner organizations while implementing their projects and
governmental/regulatory body staff. Lastly, “Sustainability-
emphasis in project portfolio management”, this strategy
focuses on addressing criteria that emphasize sustainability
effects while approving and choosing projects for
implementation.
These strategies were contributed to the questionnaire design
of this research.
Project management and sustainability
Sustainability is about creating a positive change that can pro-
duce benefits without a negative impact on future generations
(Silvius 2019). Projects, in turn, are temporary organizations that
aim to achieve a change in organizations, products, services, poli-
cies or assets (Lundin and S€ oderholm 1995; Turner and M€ uller
4 A. SAMARA ET AL.
2003). Therefore, more sustainable development is expected by
having more projects (Silvius 2019). However, even though the
World Commission on Environment and Development put this
link between sustainability and project in the 1980s, the literature
still lacks studies that test this relationship (Silvius 2019). Only a
few studies tried to tackle this topic (Turner and M€ uller 2003;
Brent and Labuschagne 2006; Gareis et al. 2009, 2013; Silvius
et al. 2009; Brones et al. 2014; Martens and Carvalho 2016,
2017). Furthermore, according to Marcelino-Sadaba et al. (2015),
despite the global pressure to include sustainability in all fields
and the changing of government policies and regulations to pro-
mote this inclusion, project management has still lacked a perfect
inclusion of sustainability and environmental practices. Most of
project management frameworks, including PMBOK, do not
systematically or explicitly address sustainability (Brones
et al. 2014).
None of the above-mentioned studies about the relationship
between sustainability and project management has been con-
ducted in the field of NGO ID projects. Therefore, this study
aims to assess this relationship in this field.
Research methodology
A quantitative approach was used to collect the required data
through an online questionnaire completed by a sample of man-
agement staff who work in INGOs especially in the field of refu-
gees in Jordan. The use of the quantitative approach is familiar
in managerial research, as it gives the researchers quantitative
insights about the personal opinions and organizational policies
and practices (Baruch and Holtom 2008; Albalkhy and Sweis
2019; Sweis et al. 2020). Additionally, the questionnaire was used
as a data collection tool in the similar studies that investigated
the adoption of PM tools in NGOs projects (Golini and Landoni
2013; Golini et al. 2015, 2017; Czahajda 2019; Verga Matos et al.
2019) and in the studies about sustainability strategies (Martens
and Carvalho 2017; TodoroviC  and ObradoviC  2018; Silvius and
de Graaf 2019) .
The questionnaire was divided into three sections. The first
one consists of general information about the INGO (e.g.,
number of employees, projects types). The second section
focuses on project management tools (the independent vari-
able). For each international standard (e.g., PMBOK) and for
each tool (e.g., project schedule, stakeholder matrix) asking
about the level of adopting in INGOs. To ensure the INGO’s
sustainability within its projects, the last section was devoted
to sustainability strategies adoption in INGOs. The second sec-
tion of this questionnaire was adopted from Golini et al.
(2015) study, which examined the effect of PM tools adoption
on the internal and external performance of the ID project by
NGOs. The third section was adopted from Aarseth et al.
(2017) study, which identified the eight sustainability strategies
from previous literature. The authors have not found any study
that has a scale that has questions about the two
topics together.
Participants were asked to evaluate the level of adaption of
the two variables based on the 5-point Likert scale where (1)
expresses very low, (2) expresses low, (3) expresses medium, (4)
expresses high, and (5) expresses a very high level of adaption.
Research population and sample
According to ACTED and Jordan INGO Forum, there are 61
(INGOs) implementing development and humanitarian programs
in Jordan. Nevertheless, there are only 34 INGO working in the
field of refugees in Jordan. Based on a collected list from the
Ministry of Social Development, Ministry of Planning and
International Cooperation, and the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) website in February 2018,
the researchers identified the INGOs working in the field of refu-
gees in Jordan. Ministry of Social Development and Ministry of
Planning and International Cooperation are the two governmen-
tal ministries in Jordan that are responsible for licensing and
managing the INGOs and their interventions. However, UNHCR
chairs the overall coordination clusters in the field of refugees
in Jordan.
The targeted respondents were the management staff of
INGOs including; country directors and assistance country direc-
tors, program directors and managers, project managers and
supervisors, monitoring and evaluation managers and officers,
quality and accountability specialists/staff, advocacy officers,
donors’ relationship and partnerships officers and project man-
agement officers. The selection of these positions was based on
several field visits to around 13 INGO working in Jordan to
investigate the organizational structure and the most prevalent
management positions along with their significant roles and
responsibilities in INGOs’ performance and sustainability in
terms of achieving outputs, outcomes, and impacts of
interventions.
Approximately a total of (472) management staff of INGOs
working only in the field of refugees in Jordan represent the tar-
get population at the time of this study. Contacts with INGOs’
networks by email and phone, when possible, were very import-
ant to find out the overall total number of management staff
working in the field of refugees in Jordan. The study used a ran-
dom sampling technique. Using the sample size calculator, with
a margin error of 10% and a confidence level of 95%, it was
found that the random sample had to be 80 participants.
In all, 100 participants from the targeted category were asked
to fill the online survey questionnaire. Of the 100 invited partici-
pants, 84 participants were considered respondents as they
returned a complete survey. Accordingly, the study questionnaire
was considered reasonable and reliable to provide sound findings
and outcomes. After adopting the questionnaire from a reviewed
literature and calculating the sample size, the questionnaire was
distributed online using Google forms by sending email requests
to complete the final survey questionnaire.
Questionnaire validity and reliability
Content validity was based on using previously published studies
to develop the questionnaire and then discussing the question-
naire with a group of specialists. This group included five profes-
sors and instructors in the field of project management and five
experts who were occupying managerial positions in INGOs in
Jordan. The experts were financial manager, human resource
manager, executive director business excellence unit director at
INGOs in Jordan, and international cooperation officer at the
Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation. The final
sample did not include these five experts. Based on the notes
and comments of the experts from the field and universities, the
questionnaire was modified.
To check the validity for included variables the Pearson cor-
relation coefficient is calculated denoted by r, where per the table
of critical values for Pearson’s r and taking into consideration
the sample size 84 the resulted critical value of r would be 0.232.
Values of Pearson correlation coefficient for all variables are

significant with p-values < 0.05, and the values of correlation
coefficients are greater than critical values of r 0.232, such results
provide evidence of construct validity for the questionnaire
adopted in this study.
The internal consistency reliability, which measures the extent
of the correlation between the set of independent items that
measure a concept (Sekaran and Bougie 2016), was assessed
using Cronbach Alpha (Cronbach 1951). The overall Alpha
equals 0.943, which considered as an excellent level of consist-
ency. Alpha values were 0.928 and 0.864 for PM tools and sus-
tainability strategies respectively. In conclusion, the measurement
of reliability analysis indicates an acceptable level of internal con-
sistency within each variable and between variables.
Results
Sample characteristics
46.4% of the study sample were project managers/supervisors,
17.9% of the sample work as project management officers, and
14.3% are program directors/program managers. Furthermore,
78.6% of the participants are national staff compared to 21.4% of
the participants are international. More than half of the sample
has more than 5 years of experience in the field of ID projects
with a percent of 53.6%, while 33.3% of the sample have an
experience of 2 to 5 years. According to Jayawickrama and
McCullagh (2009), some donors make project funding available
for short periods (1-2 years). However, the issues they address
require long-term commitments (more than 5 years).
The size of surveyed organizations (according to the number
of employees) varies between small (less than 50 employees) with
a percent of 21.4% which is the same percent for medium size
organizations, and large organization (more than 150 employees)
with a percent of 57.2%.
With respect to the type of programs provided by the sur-
veyed INGOs, results show that each INGO provides more than
one type so that it was possible for them in the questionnaire to
check more than one option. “Development” program provided
by 63.1% of INGOs, and “Emergency relief” provided by 51.2%
of INGOs.
RQ1: the levels of PM tools adoption
Results of the mean score for each item depends on the follow-
ing classification, which is designed based on the minimum value
of response (1), the maximum value (5), and the number of
classes, which is five classes, where each class has a length
of 0.80:
(1.00  1.80) indicates a very low level, (1.81  2.61) indicates
a low level, (2.62  3.42) indicates a medium level, (3.43  4.23)
indicates a high level, and (4.24  5.00) indicates a very
high level.
This classification identifies which PM tools are adopted
more in the ID projects of INGOs in Jordan from the points of
views of the respondents. It also helps to test the differences
between the levels of adoptions of PM tools in these projects.
For this purpose, K-means cluster analysis was used. K-means
cluster analysis helps to assign each managerial staff to a cluster
(a group of homogenous responses on items of interest), and
results indicate that two clusters are needed to classify all partici-
pants. Furthermore, the concept of PM maturity was used in this
part of the study, which expresses the capability of an
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 5
organization with respect to PM processes in different phases of
the project life cycle (Ibbs and Kwak 2000).
Table 1 shows the results of the K-means cluster analysis for
each PM tool. Cluster 1 includes 61 participants that represent
72.6% of the surveyed managerial staff; only three PM tools were
highly adopted by project managers; (Progress Report, Logical
Framework, and Cost Accounting) with mean values 4.08, 3.98,
and 3.54 respectively. While, the following tools were adopted at
a medium level by the managerial staff of cluster 1;
(Responsibility Assignment Matrix, Gantt diagram, Work
Breakdown Structure, Milestone Schedule, Organizational
Breakdown Structure, Scope Management, Stakeholder Analysis
Matrix, Communication Plan, Contingency Allocation, Risk
Analysis). Furthermore, three PM tools were neglected (or
adopted at a low level) by the managerial staff of cluster 1 that
represent 72.6% of the sample; (Issue Log, Critical Path Method,
and Earned Value Management System) with mean values 2.39,
2.33, and 2.36 respectively.
On the other hand, in cluster 2, which includes 23 partici-
pants that represent 27.4% of the sample, seven PM tools were
very highly adopted by managerial staff with mean values ranged
between 4.26 and 4.48. While the rest nine PM tools were highly
adopted by managerial staff with mean 3.83 to 4.22.
RQ2: the levels of sustainability strategies adoption
Table 2 shows that, the mean score of responses about sustain-
ability strategies of ID projects in Jordan. Results show that there
is a very high adoption for “Setting strategic and tactical sustain-
ability goals” strategy by cluster 2 (represents 72 participants of
the sample with the percent of 85.7%) with a mean score of 4.50.
While in case of cluster 1 (represents 12 participants of the sam-
ple with the percent of 14.3%), there is a medium adoption for
same strategy and low adoption for both “Developing sustainable
supplier practices” and “Emphasizing sustainability in project
design” with a mean of 2.50 for each.
Moreover, in the case of sustainability strategies adopted by
project hosts, results show that there is a high adoption for
“Setting sustainability policies” strategy by cluster 2 with a mean
score of 3.82 and “Influencing sustainability of project practices”
with a mean score of 3.50. While in the case of cluster 1, there is
a medium adoption for “Setting sustainability policies” strategy
and low adoption for “Influencing sustainability of project
practices” with a mean of 2.58. With respect to strategies
adopted by both project organizations and hosts, Table 2 shows
that; there is a medium adoption for “Developing sustainability
Competencies” strategy for both cluster1 and cluster 2 with
mean scores of 2.92, and 3.32 respectively. Furthermore, a
remarkable result from table 2 is that there is a high adoption
for “Sustainability-emphasis in project portfolio management”
strategy by cluster 2 with a mean score of 4.04, while in cluster
1, there is a low adoption for the same strategy.
RQ3: the effect of PM tools on sustainability strategies
To answer the third research question, there is a need to test the
relationship between PM tools and sustainability strategies. Table
3 represents the correlation coefficients and significance of the
association between PM tools and sustainability strategies. The
table shows that all PM tools have significant correlations with
sustainability strategies.
Table 4 shows the results of the regression analysis, which
was used to test the effect of the PM adoption on sustainability
6 A. SAMARA ET AL.

Table 2. Mean scores for the responses on items of sustainability strategies variable.
Sustainability Strategies Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Average mean
Sustainability strategies adopted by project organizations
Setting strategic and tactical sustainability goals 2.83 4.50 4.26
Developing sustainable supplier practices 2.50 4.10 3.87
Emphasizing sustainability in project design 2.50 4.03 3.81
Sustainability strategies adopted by project hosts
Setting sustainability policies 2.75 3.82 3.67
Influencing sustainability of project practices 2.58 3.50 3.37
Mutual sustainability strategies
Inclusion of sustainability-promoting actors in the project organization 2.83 3.28 3.21
Developing sustainability Competencies 2.92 3.32 3.26
Sustainability-emphasis in project portfolio management 2.58 4.04 3.83
N 12 72 84
% 14.3 85.7 100.0

Table 3. Correlation coefficients and significance of the association between PM were not high. Only “Progress report”, “Logical framework and
tools and sustainability strategies. “Cost accounting” were considered to be highly applied in the
PM Tools Correlation coefficient Sig. projects that these managers work on. This result is consistent
Logical Framework 0.355 0.000 with the findings of Golini et al. (2015) who conducted 4-steps
Progress report 0.301 0.003 cluster analysis, in which “Progress report” and “Logical frame-
Cost Accounting 0.350 0.001 work” were the most adopted PM tools in ID projects in INGOs
Gantt diagram 0.259 0.009
Risk Analysis 0.547 0.000
operating in different countries. The analysis also shows that
Communication Plan 0.436 0.000 some PM tools including “Issue log”, “Earned value management
Organizational Breakdown Structure 0.491 0.000 systems”, and Critical path method” are adopted in low levels in
Milestone Schedule 0.529 0.000 INGOs projects in Jordan. This result is also consistent with the
Stakeholder Analysis Matrix 0.478 0.000 findings of Golini et al. (2015).
Scope Management (tracking change requests, etc.) 0.518 0.000
Contingency allocation 0.522 0.000 In cluster (2), which includes 27.4% of the participants, the
Responsibility Assignment Matrix 0.518 0.000 adoption of most PM tools increases; nine PM tools were found
Work Breakdown Structure 0.570 0.000 to be adopted very highly, and seven were highly adopted.
Critical Path Method 0.480 0.000 The average mean of all PM tools (no clustering) was the
Issue Log 0.475 0.000
Earned Value Management System 0.468 0.000
highest for the basic tools; including “Progress report”,
“Logical framework and “Cost accounting”, which were highly
adopted. While it was the lowest for “Issue log”, “Earned
Table 4. ANOVA table for the differences in sustainability strategies based on value management systems”, and Critical path method”. Table
the differences in PM tools. 6 shows a comparison between the levels adoption of PM
Source of variation Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. tools in this study and the studies of Golini et al. (2015),
Regression 20.318 16 1.270 6.239 0.000a which is a global study that was conducted in ID in the five
Residual 13.637 67 0.204 continents, Czahajda (2019) in the Polish non-profit organiza-
Total 33.955 83
tions, and Verga Matos et al. (2019) in the Portuguese non-
governmental development organizations. The figures from
this study and the three other studies are comparable as all
strategies. The table shows that there is a statistically significant studies used the same scale (5-points Likert scale). The table
effect for the PM tools on sustainability strategies in the INGOs shows that except for the Polish non-profit organizations, the
ID projects in Jordan (P-Value ¼0.000). figures from this study and the studies of Golini et al. (2015)
In order to determine the effect of each tool, Table 5 dis- and Verga Matos et al. (2019) are generally consistent in
plays the standardized coefficient (Beta) for each tool with terms of the most and the least adopted tools. However,
the value of significance. The table shows that “Risk Analysis” inconsistencies were found in the adoption of “Work break-
and “Work Breakdown Structure” as PM tools have a statistic- down structure” and “Risk analysis”, whereas the first is
ally significant positive impact on sustainability strategies highly adopted and the second is moderately adopted in the
(both have significant impact with Beta values of 0.242 and INGOs projects in Jordan, the opposite was found in the
0.338 respectively), while the “Gantt diagram” has a statistic- other two studies.
ally significant negative impact on sustainability strategies For the first research question, the findings of this study
(Beta¼ 0.273). show similar practices among INGOs in Jordan and NGOs in
other countries (based on the previous studies) in regards to the
adoption of PM tools. More specifically, INGOs tend to rely
Discussion of the findings heavily on reporting, which sometimes affects the understanding
RQ1: the levels of PM tools adoption of other tools. For instance, Ika and Lytvynov (2011) claimed
that some NGOs apply of result-based management, which is an
The findings of the study show that project managers in ID proj- effective tool in managing ID projects, with too much focus on
ects in INGOs in Jordan believe that there are differences in the reporting and too little focus on having information about per-
levels of PM tools adoption in these projects. Cluster analysis formance and using this information to get better results.
shows that more than two-thirds of the project managers who Similarly, according to a report about result-based management
participated in the study (72.6%) and were in cluster (1) believe by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
that the levels of adoption of most PM tools in their projects (2007), result-based management is considered primarily a
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 7

Table 5. The analysis of the effect of PM tools on sustainability strategies.

Predictor Standardized Coefficients Beta t Sig.
(Constant) 3.606 0.001
Logical Framework 0.152 1.138 0.259
Progress report 0.097 0.567 0.573
Cost Accounting 0.081 0.579 0.564
Gantt diagram 0.273 2.157 0.035
Risk Analysis 0.242 2.193 0.032
Communication Plan 0.225 1.347 0.182
Organizational Breakdown Structure 0.119 0.787 0.434
Milestone Schedule 0.220 1.460 0.149
Stakeholder Analysis Matrix 0.010 0.057 0.955
Scope Management (tracking change requests, etc.) 0.202 0.899 0.372
Contingency allocation 0.102 0.696 0.489
Responsibility Assignment Matrix 0.197 1.452 0.151
Work Breakdown Structure 0.338 2.879 0.005
Critical Path Method 0.172 0.842 0.403
Issue Log 0.287 1.444 0.153
Earned Value Management System 0.326 1.808 0.075

Table 6. A comparison between the levels of PM tools adoption in the current study and the previous studies.
Project Management (PM) Tools Current Study Golini et al. (2015) Czahajda (2019) Verga Matos et al. (2019)
Progress report 4.18 4.47 N/A 4.38
Logical Framework 4.08 4.22 2.03 4.39
Cost Accounting 3.71 4.11 4.08 4.13
Responsibility Assignment Matrix 3.68 2.77 2.12 2.52
Gantt diagram 3.60 3.59 2.51 3.65
Work Breakdown Structure 3.55 2.68 2.15 1.48
Milestone Schedule 3.44 3.26 3.2 2.43
Organizational Breakdown Structure 3.31 3.28 N/A 2.42
Scope Management (tracking change requests, etc.) 3.26 2.79 N/A 3.09
Stakeholder Analysis Matrix 3.18 3.03 2.18 3.57
Communication Plan 3.17 3.46 N/A 4.17
Contingency allocation 3.07 2.73 N/A 2.43
Risk Analysis 2.96 3.49 2.39 2.91
Issue Log 2.87 2.38 N/A 2.39
Critical Path Method 2.83 2.46 2.12 1.48
Earned Value Management System 2.76 2 2.03 1.48

reporting system rather than an informed management system.
In addition, the logical framework seems to be the second most
adopted PM tool by INGOs in Jordan. That is not unexpected,
as this tool was originally developed in the ID projects nature
(Biggs and Smith 2003; Ika 2012; Golini et al. 2015). However,
despite the heavy use of this tool in ID projects, and the spread
of its use even in other sectors, some researchers criticized this
tool as ineffective (Smith 2000; Biggs and Smith 2003; Couillard
et al. 2009). In these regards, Golini et al. (2018) asserted that
despite the usefulness of “Logical Framework”, in some cases,
especially in the large and complex projects, donors may
require using more structured tools than “Logical Framework”,
and the latter may not be effective as the managers expect.
Similarly, Picciotto (2019) claimed that the “Logical
Framework” helps to focus on results and to identify and track
success indicators, however, it does not answer the question
about the relevance of projects’ goals and the justifications of
the mean to pursue these goals.
The analysis also shows that the overall adoption of PM
tools is moderate (overall mean of PM adoption is 3.35). As
well as, it shows that NGOs have different PM maturity, as
there are differences in their adoption to PM tools.
Additionally, most INGOs in Jordan prefer to rely on simple
and basic tools. However, there are some optimistic results in
regards to the adoption of some tools that are taken from
industry, such as work breakdown structure. As well as, there
are some positive results show that some INGOs apply all PM
tools at high levels.
RQ2: the levels of sustainability strategies adoption
For the second research question, which aims at evaluating the
levels of adoption of sustainability strategies in INGOs ID proj-
ects, cluster analysis was also used. The analysis shows that pro-
ject managers in ID projects in INGOs in Jordan believe that the
levels of adoption of sustainability strategies are high (the overall
mean of sustainability strategies adoption is 3.66). The highest
levels of adoption of sustainability strategies were the strategies
that are related to project organization. Participants believe that
their organizations have very high levels of “Setting strategic and
tactical sustainability goals”, which shows the commitment of
these organizations to identify sustainable project policies and
execute governmental and regulatory tasks that promote sustain-
ability in their projects. As well as, the participants believe that
their organizations have high levels of supporting suppliers in
implementing sustainable practices and emphasizing sustainabil-
ity during the early phases of project design. On another hand,
participants believe that INGOs in Jordan do not fully support
the development of sustainability-related competencies and skills
among project managers, and do not provide training to improve
these skills. Furthermore, participants believe that there is no
perfect inclusion of other authorities that can support the adop-
tion of sustainability practices. Eventually, INGOs in Jordan
work solely in promoting sustainability practices and do not
make great efforts to bring or work with parties that promote
sustainability skills and capabilities. These findings were empha-
sized by the majority of the participants, who constitute around
85.7% of the sample (cluster 1).
8 A. SAMARA ET AL.
RQ3: the effect of PM tools on sustainability strategies
Regarding the third question of the study, structural equation
modeling was used to test the impact of the adoption of PM
tools on the adoption of sustainability strategies. The analysis
shows that PM tools adoption affects sustainability strategies in
INGOs ID projects in Jordan. This means that increasing PM
knowledge among project managers may results in an increase
the sustainability knowledge and may lead to a better sustainabil-
ity performance in these projects. More specifically, the tools
that are significantly affecting the adoption of sustainability strat-
egies are “Work breakdown structure” and “Risk analysis”.
“Work breakdown structure” is usually more adopted in business
and industry (White and Fortune 2002), fortunately, its adoption
in INGOs ID projects in Jordan is high. This tool is critical to
have a correct definition of project activities, and it significantly
impacts the way of managing the project (Globerson 1994).
“Risk analysis” is a very well-known tool in PM, which is very
helpful to avoid the occurrence and the negative impact of risk
(Golini et al. 2015). However, the analysis shows that this tool is
not highly adopted in ID projects in Jordan. The third affecting
tool on sustainability strategies is “Gantt diagram”. This tool
negatively affects the adoption of sustainability strategies. Despite
the importance of this tool in presenting schedule and relation-
ships between activities, this result can be explained using the
criticisms against this tool due to its failure to cope with com-
plexity, ambiguity, uncertainty, and change in the projects
(Geraldi and Lechter 2012), which are more probable to appear
during the adoption of sustainability strategies.
Conclusion
INGOs in Jordan need to make greater efforts to increase the
adoption of PM tools in their ID projects, especially those tools
that are considered more complex and were not originally devel-
oped in the ID projects nature (e.g., “Issue log”, “Critical path
method”, and “Earned value management system”). They also
need to do more work to ensure that their work is not relying
only on reporting, and neglecting the main goal of reporting,
which is having useful information that would improve the per-
formance and decision-making processes. Furthermore, INGOs
in Jordan should work more, and in cooperation with other par-
ties including the government, to ensure suitable development of
sustainability-related skills and competencies, and to ensure full
inclusion of all actors whose participation would promote the
application of sustainability practices. As well as, these organiza-
tions should increase the adoption of PM tools in their work,
which in turn, would be reflected in sustainability achievement.
“Risk analysis” and “Work breakdown structure” are amongst
the most needed tools to be improved as they have significant
impacts on the adoption of sustainability strategies. Additionally,
there must be global efforts to explicitly and systematically
include sustainability in project management frameworks and ID
project management.
This work provides original evidence on the adoption and
impact of PM tools on sustainability strategies of INGOs, which
can be used by managers and decision-makers to improve the
sustainable performance and to produce more benefits from ID
projects. The authors have no knowledge about any other study
that links between the adoption of PM tools and sustainability
strategies neither in Jordan nor in other countries. This work
also provides managers with a tool that can be used to assess the
internal use of PM tools and the adoption of sustainability
strategies and aims to enhance knowledge about PM practices
in INGOs.
This study has different limitations. Firstly, this study assumes
that INGOs adopt PM tools properly; the study has no tool to
assess the correct way of the implementation/adoption of PM
tools. Future research can be conducted to test the proper adop-
tion of PM tools. Secondly, this study is conducted in INGOs
operating in Jordan, thus future studies can tackle similar ques-
tions in other countries or can make comparisons between dif-
ferent projects of one INGO or more. Furthermore, the effect of
the fields the NGOs are working in, the size of the NGOs, the
budgets of the projects, or any other variable were not consid-
ered in this study. Therefore, future studies can tackle the effect
of these variables. Moreover, this study uses a questionnaire as a
data collection instrument. Consequently, there have been some
limitations in having more answers to the “Why” questions.
Future studies can use other tools such as interviews, focus
groups, or case studies. In addition, this study focuses on the
adoption of sustainability strategies rather than evaluating the
sustainability performance in the INGOs or the projects. Future
studies can link between PM tools and their impact on social,
economic, and environmental sustainable performance. Finally,
more studies are needed to identify the enablers, strategies, and
barriers to adopt PM tools or sustainability strategies in INGOs
ID projects.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
References
Aarseth W, Ahola T, Aaltonen K, Økland A, Andersen B. 2017. Project sus-
tainability strategies: A systematic literature review. Int J Project Manage.
35(6):1071–1083.
Albalkhy W, Sweis R. 2019. Assessing lean construction conformance
amongst the second-grade Jordanian construction contractors. Int J
Constr Manage. 1–13. DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2019.1661571.
Aldashev G, Verdier T. 2009. When NGOs go global: Competition on inter-
national markets for development donations. J Int Econ. 79(2):198–210.
Aldashev G, Verdier T. 2010. Goodwill bazaar: NGO competition and giving
to development. J Dev Econ. 91(1):48–63.
Alshawawreh LA, Smith RS, Wood JB. 2017. Assessing the sheltering
response in the middle east: Studying Syrian Camps in Jordan. Int J
Human Soc Sci. 11(8):1993–1999.
Banks N, Hulme D, Edwards M. 2015. NGOs, States, and Donors Revisited:
Still Too Close for Comfort? World Dev. 66:707–718.
Barney JB. 2002. Strategic management: From informed conversation to aca-
demic discipline. AMP. 16(2):53–57.
Baruch Y, Holtom BC. 2008. Survey response rate levels and trends in organ-
izational research. Human Relat. 61(8):1139–1160.
Bayat A. 1996. The coming of a post-Islamist Society. Critique: J Crit Stud
Middle East. 5(9):43–52.
Bebbington AJ, Hickey S, Mitlin DC. 2013. Can NGOs make a difference?:
the challenge of development alternatives. London, UK: Zed Books Ltd.
Beisheim M, Ellersiek A, Lorch J. 2018. INGOs and multi-stakeholder partner-
ships. The Oxford Handbook of Governance and Limited Statehood. 211.
Belassi W, Tukel OI. 1996. A new framework for determining critical suc-
cess/failure factors in projects. Int J Project Manage. 14(3):141–151.
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 A, Labuschagne C. 2006. Social indicators for sustainable project and
technology life cycle management in the process industry (13 ppþ 4). Int
J Life Cycle Assess. 11(1):3–15.
Brones F, de Carvalho MM, de Senzi Zancul E. 2014. Ecodesign in project
management: a missing link for the integration of sustainability in product
development?. J Cleaner Prod. 80:106–118.
Chahim D, Prakash A. 2014. NGOization, Foreign Funding, and the
Nicaraguan Civil Society. Voluntas. 25(2):487–513.

Clarke A. 1999. A practical use of key success factors to improve the effect-
iveness of project management. Int J Project Manage. 17(3):139–145.
Couillard J, Garon S, Riznic J. 2009. The Logical Framework
Approach–Millennium. Project Manage J. 40(4):31–44.
Cronbach LJ. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
Psychometrika. 16(3):297–334.
Czahajda R. 2019. Project management practices in Polish Nonprofit
Organisations. Information Systems Architecture and Technology.
Proceedings of 39th International Conference on Information Systems
Architecture and Technology – ISAT 2018; 2019//2019; Cham: Springer
International Publishing.
Dahan NM, Doh JP, Oetzel J, Yaziji M. 2010. Corporate-NGO collaboration:
Co-creating new business models for developing markets. Long Range
Plann. 43(2–3):326–342.
Davies T. 2019. Routledge Handbook of NGOs and International Relations.
New York, USA: Routledge.
Dedu V, Staicu G, Niţescu DC. 2011. A critical examination of foreign aid
policy. Why it fails to eradicate poverty? Theor Appl Econ. 18(4):37–48.
Diriye AH. 2014. An investigation of factors influencing performance of non-
governmental projects in Kenya: A case of Garissa County. Nairobi, Kenya:
School of Continuing and Distance Education, University of Nairobi.
Dvir D, Lechler T. 2004. Plans are nothing, changing plans is everything: the
impact of changes on project success. Res Policy. 33(1):1–15.
Easterly W. 2009. How the millennium development goals are unfair to
Africa. World Dev. 37(1):26–35.
Edwards M, Hulme D, Wallace T. 1999. NGOs in a global future: marrying
local delivery to worldwide leverage. Public Admin Dev. 19(2):117–136.
Fallah B, Krafft C, Wahba J. 2019. The impact of refugees on employment
and wages in Jordan. J Dev Econ. 139:203–216.
Gachie W. 2019. Project sustainability management: risks, problems and per-
spective. Prob Perspect Manage. 17(1):313–325.
Gareis R, Huemann M, Martinuzzi A. (2010). Relating sustainable develop-
ment and project management: A conceptual model. Paper presented at
PMIV R Research Conference: Defining the Future of Project Management,
Washington, DC. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Gareis R, Huemann M, Martinuzzi A, Weninger C, Sedlacko M. 2013. Project
management and sustainable development principles. Project Management
Institute; [updated 2013; accessed 16 March 2020]. https://www.pmi.org/-/
media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/research/research-summaries/gareis_-pm-
and-sustainable-development.pdf.
Project management and sustainable development principles 2013. 2013:
Project Management Institute.
Gellert GA. 1996. Non-governmental organizations in international health:
past successes, future challenges. Int J Health Plann Manage. 11(1):19–31.
Geraldi J, Lechter T. 2012. Gantt charts revisited: A critical analysis of its
roots and implications to the management of projects today. Int J
Managing Projects Bus. 5(4):578–594.
Ghreiz E. 2020. The Syrian Refugee Crisis in Jordan: Challenges and Future
Opportunities for NGOs. In: Beaujouan J, Rasheed A, editors. Syrian
Crisis, Syrian Refugees: Voices from Jordan and Lebanon. Cham: Springer
International Publishing. p. 119–137.
Globerson S. 1994. Impact of various work-breakdown structures on project
conceptualization. Int J Project Manage. 12(3):165–171.
Golini R, Corti B, Landoni P. 2017. More efficient project execution and
evaluation with logical framework and project cycle management: evidence
from international development projects. Impact Assess Project Appraisal.
35(2):128–138.
Golini R, Kalchschmidt M, Landoni P. 2015. Adoption of project manage-
ment practices: The impact on international development projects of non-
governmental organizations. Int J Project Manage. 33(3):650–663.
Golini R, Landoni P. 2013. International development projects: Peculiarities and
managerial approaches. Newtown Square, Pennsylvania: Project Management
Institute; [updated 2013; accessed 16 March 2020]. https://www.pmi.org/-/
media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/research/research-summaries/landoni_inter-
national-devel-projects.pdf?v=20cc1297-0a92-4b69-b948-abc70fda44ee.
Golini R, Landoni P, Kalchschmidt M. 2018. The adoption of the logical
framework in international development projects: a survey of non-govern-
mental organizations. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 36(2):145–154.
Hermano V, L opez-Paredes A, Martın-Cruz N, Pajares J. 2013. How to man-
age international development (ID) projects successfully. Is the PMD Pro1
Guide going to the right direction?. Int J Project Manage. 31(1):22–30.
Ibbs CW, Kwak YH. 2000. Assessing project management maturity. Project
Manage J. 31(1):32–43.
Ika LA. 2012. Project management for development in Africa: Why projects
are failing and what can be done about it. Project Manage J. 43(4):27–41.
Ika LA, Diallo A, Thuillier D. 2012. Critical success factors for World Bank
projects: An empirical investigation. Int J Project Manage. 30(1):105–116.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 9
Ika LA, Lytvynov V. 2011. The “Management-Per-Result” Approach to
International Development Project Design. Project Manage J. 42(4):87–104.
Ika LA, S€ oderlund J, Munro LT, Landoni P. 2018. When project management
meets international development, what can we learn?. Int J Project
Manage. 36(2):331–333.
Jayawickrama S, McCullagh N. 2009. What Makes International NGOs
Distinctive? Contributions, Characteristics and Challenges. Hauser Center
Nonprofit Organizations Harvard Univ. 7(1):2012.
Jenkins W, Williamson D. 2015. Strategic management and business analysis.
UK: Routledge.
Johnson G, Scholes K, Whittington R. 2008. Exploring corporate strategy:
text & cases. London, UK: Pearson education.
Khieng S, Dahles H. 2015. Resource Dependence and Effects of Funding
Diversification Strategies Among NGOs in Cambodia. Voluntas. 26(4):
1412–1437.
Killen CP, Jugdev K, Drouin N, Petit Y. 2012. Advancing project and port-
folio management research: Applying strategic management theories. Int J
Project Manage. 30(5):525–538.
Lundin RA, S€ oderholm A. 1995. A theory of the temporary organization.
Scand J Manage. 11(4):437–455.
Ly P, Mason G. 2012. Competition Between Microfinance NGOs: Evidence
from Kiva. World Dev. 40(3):643–655.
Marcelino-Sadaba S, Gonzalez-Jaen LF, Perez-Ezcurdia A. 2015. Using project
management as a way to sustainability. From a comprehensive review to a
framework definition. J Cleaner Prod. 99:1–16.
Marshall A, Telofski R, Ojiako U, Chipulu M. 2012. An Examination of ‘Irregular
Competition’ between Corporations and NGOs. Voluntas. 23(2):371–391.
Martens ML, Carvalho MM. 2016. The challenge of introducing sustainability
into project management function: multiple-case studies. J Cleaner Prod.
117:29–40.
Martens ML, Carvalho MM. 2017. Key factors of sustainability in project
management context: A survey exploring the project managers’ perspec-
tive. Int J Project Manage. 35(6):1084–1102.
Mingus N. 2002. Alpha Teach Yourself Project Management dalam 24 Jam.
Jakarta: Prenada.
Munns AK, Bjeirmi BF. 1996. The role of project management in achieving
project success. Int J Project Manage. 14(2):81–87.
Nanthagopan Y, Williams NL, Page S. 2016. Understanding the nature of project
management capacity in Sri Lankan non-governmental organisations (NGOs):
a resource based perspective. Int J Project Manage. 34(8):1608–1624.
Nunnenkamp P, Ohler € H. 2012. Funding, Competition and the Efficiency of
NGOs: An Empirical Analysis of Non-charitable Expenditure of US NGOs
Engaged in Foreign Aid. Kyklos. 65(1):81–110.
Ovasdi JM. 2006. Management of non-governmental organisations: towards a
developed civil society. New Delhi, India: Macmillan.
Picciotto R. 2019. Towards a ‘New Project Management’movement? An inter-
national development perspective. Int J Project Manage. 1–12. DOI: 10.
1016/j.ijproman.2019.08.002.
Porter M. 1996. What is strategy? Harvard Bus Rev. 74(6):61–78.
Rodrıguez-Rivero R, Ortiz-Marcos I, Ballesteros-Sanchez L, Sanchez MJ.
2019. Improving the management of international development projects.
Int J Managing Projects Bus. DOI: 10.1108/IJMPB-03-2019-0057.
Sekaran U, Bougie R. 2016. Research methods for business: A skill building
approach. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Shleifer A. 2009. Peter Bauer and the failure of foreign aid. Cato J. 29(379):379–390.
Silvius A. 2019. A Maturity Model for Integrating Sustainability in Projects
and Project Management.
Silvius A, Van Der Brink J, Kohler A. 2009. Views on sustainable project
management. In: Kahkohnen K, Kazi A, Rekola M, editors. Human Side
of Projects in Modern Business. Helsinki, Finland: IPMA Scientific
Research Paper Series. p. 545–556.
Silvius AJG, de Graaf M. 2019. Exploring the project manager’s intention to
address sustainability in the project board. J Cleaner Prod. 208:1226–1240.
Simadi FA, Almomani F. 2008. Clients satisfaction about non-governmental
organizations (NGOS) services in Jordan. Int NGO J. 3(3):038–047.
Smith P. 2000. A comment on the limitations of the logical framework method,
in reply to Gasper, and to Bell. Public Admin Dev. 20(5):439–441.
Sweis R, Abed S, ZbMF A, Suifan T, AlBalkhy W, Sweis N, Jaradat M. 2020.
The Relation between Information Technology Adoption and the
Pharmacist Job Satisfaction in the Chain Community Pharmacy in
Amman. Int J Bus Innov Res.
TodoroviC  M, ObradoviC  V. 2018. Sustainability in project management: a
project manager’s perspective. Hungary: Institute of World Economics,
Centre for Economic and Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of
Sciences. (Sustainable Growth and Development in Small Open Economies.
Turner JR, M€ uller R. 2003. On the nature of the project as a temporary
organization. Int J Project Manage. 21(1):1–8.
10 A. SAMARA ET AL.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2014. Human
Development Report 2014: Sustaining Human Progress: Reducing
Vulnerabilities and Building Resilience. New York: United Nations
Development Programme; [accessed 12 December 2018]. http://hdr.undp.
org/sites/default/files/hdr14-report-en-1.pdf.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2007. Evaluation of results-
based management at UNDP, Evaluation Office. New York, NY: UNDP.
Verga Matos P, Rom~ao M, Miranda Sarmento J, Abaladas A. 2019. The
adoption of project management methodologies and tools by NGDOs: A
mixed methods perspective. J Bus Res. 101:651–659.
Viravaidya M, Hayssen J. 2001. Strategies to strengthen NGO capacity in
resource mobilization through business activities. PDA and UNAIDS joint
publication UNAIDS Best Practice Collection.
White D, Fortune J. 2002. Current practice in project management—An
empirical study. Int J Project Manage. 20(1):1–11.
Wiktorowicz Q. 2002. The Political Limits to Nongovernmental
Organizations in Jordan. World Dev. 30(1):77–93.
Yanarella EJ, Bartilow H. 2000. Beyond environmental moralism and policy
incrementalism in the global sustainability debate: case studies and an
alternative framework. Sust Dev. 8(3):123–134.