The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1753-8378.htm

Project management challenges for Post-disaster

reconstruction
post-disaster reconstruction projects in
Angola
projects in Angola: a public
sector perspective 767
Nyamagere Gladys Sospeter Received 9 March 2020
Revised 21 July 2020
PD-Researcher, Graduate School of Business Leadership, University of South Africa, Accepted 5 August 2020
Midrand, South Africa and
Ardhi University, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Pantaleo M.D. Rwelamila
Graduate School of Business Leadership, University of South Africa,
Midrand, South Africa, and
Joaqium Gimbi
Director of Provincial Office, State of Uige, Uige, Angola and
Kimpa Vita Public University, Uige, Angola

Abstract
Purpose – Despite the extensive research on post-disaster reconstruction projects (PDRP), there is a paucity of
studies that examine critical challenges for the project practices in post-war-developing countries, particularly,
Africa. The purpose of this research is to investigate the key project management challenges impacting the
post-disaster reconstruction projects (PDRP) during the construction and planning stages in Angola, with an
aim to fill the knowledge gap.
Design/methodology/approach – The primary data was collected from 130 project management
practitioners working with planning, provincial government organisations including consultants, and
contractors within the Angolan public sectors organisations. Response data was subjected to descriptive
statistics, mean scores, and inferential statistics (One sample t-tests) and Kendall’s concordance.
Findings – The descriptive and empirical analysis demonstrated a disparity of the ranking of the 21challenges
affecting the PDRP among the groups; with statistically significant differences amongst the 10 challenges.
Based on the overall sample, 6 out of 10 critical challenges are between (24–25) levels of agreement close to the
mean. The results of the mean score ranking indicate that “working with poor or restricted access to location”,
“project culture that fits the needs of local people”; “improving the capacity of local government”, “minimizing
the negative effects of local people” and “relocation issues by establishing property rights during the
reconstruction project” were the five critical challenges to managing PDRP whereas “improving information
and communication processes”, “securing adequate resources (material and machinery)”, “dealing with rising
costs of materials and labour” were considered to be the least critical.
Research limitations/implications – The study was restricted to one province and Country (out of 18)
namely, Luanda, Angola. Therefore, the findings may not be generalized to public sector organisations
operating in different countries with different contexts, political settings and disaster complexities.
Practical implications – The establishment of challenges in PDRPs helps the key stakeholders by providing
the foundation to project teams to address the challenges during planning and construction stages, and thus
improving project delivery in the future. Understanding the uniqueness of PDRPs and interdependency of
project management from the implementing organization is of particular value for the managers of future
projects and other decision-makers, especially in the emerging countries. Moreover, the findings could be used
to reflect on the need to formulate policies appropriate to post disaster environments, which among other issues
could address building policies, which could include land ownership regulations and procedures together with
property rights.
Originality/value – This study contributes to the body of knowledge on the subject within a previously International Journal of Managing
unexplored post-war context with a focus on public organizations perspective. The study provides insights on Projects in Business
the challenges affecting the post-disaster reconstruction across the Angolan public sector. Vol. 14 No. 3, 2021
pp. 767-787
Keywords Angola, Challenges, Post-disaster reconstruction (PDR), Project management, Public sector © Emerald Publishing Limited
1753-8378
Paper type Research paper DOI 10.1108/IJMPB-03-2020-0087
IJMPB 1. Introduction
14,3 While most successful organizations embrace project management and utilize it as a strategic
competitive advantage for the success of their organizations in normal conditions, the
management of post-disaster reconstruction projects (PDRPs) has been facing challenges.
One challenge is that of balancing time and quality in order to deliver the desired project
outcome (Ismail et al., 2014) or what Rwelamila and Purushottam (2012) refer to as the
inability to balance project parameters. Another problem is that of allocating capital and
768 resources in a short period of time to complete a project when there has been no proper
planning and coordination (Rui, 2017). These challenges if not adequately addressed may
lead to ineffective delivery of reconstruction projects and sometimes to project failure (Bilau
and Witt, 2016; Bilau et al., 2018). The PDRPs provide the opportunity for redevelopment of
the physical and social environment and facilitates the recovery of affected communities.
Researchers still contend that; contextual characteristics of the post-disaster reconstruction
environment and the outcome goals of most reconstruction projects present various
challenges. They say that PDRPs have been ineffective due to what (Bilau and Witt, 2016;
Bilau et al., 2018) call management issues. They argue that implementing organizations need
to adequately address and manage these issues for the effective delivery of reconstruction
projects. These challenges were; Coordination and communication, financial management,
human resources, health and safety, Logistics and supplies, workmanship and quality,
Monitoring and control. While it is important to address these challenges, it is extremely
important to analyse and determine the critical ones in a given context (PMI, 2013).
Studies indicate that, unlike conventional construction, PDRPs is complex, chaotic,
dynamic, inflexible and inadaptability when dealing with large-scale complex projects
(Qinghua et al., 2009). Consequently, Lin et al. (2017), state that “time pressure is the main
factor which makes disasters unique, and calls for a more “contextualized application of
project management methodologies that require planned and coordinated efforts from all
parties. This is because, in the aftermath of a disaster, response and recovery are
implemented through multiple projects and therefore a need for an approach that will suit the
PDRPs context because of the interest of time and flexibility in circumstances of high
uncertainty, requiring rapid reaction for multiple stakeholders (Crawford et al., 2012;
Mannakkara and Wilkinson, 2014). Each PD environment brings specific challenges and its
management is not probably the same as in countries which have been going through civil
wars like Angola. Angola is considered because it is a recovering economy and a post-disaster
country due to the civil war (1975–2002) that destroyed most of its economic infrastructure,
production and labour pool for more than 27 yrs.
Very few studies were carried out in PDRPs focusing on project management challenges
(Bilau et al., 2018), critical success factors for successful delivery of PDRPs (Wardak et al.,
2012). The fact that PDR projects brings specific challenges, Ismail et al., 2014 suggest that
each context be dealt with individually (case to case). They further suggest that, it is
important for the government to investigate challenges impeding PDRPs and find solution to
overcome the complexity and uncertainties. Additionally, Wardak et al., 2012 contend that
PDRPs remain poorly researched. As a result, there is inadequate knowledge on PM
challenges in a post war environment. Therefore, there is a growing need for better
understanding the challenges for managing PDRPs, in Angola. This research analyses the
challenges in managing PDRPs and determine the critical ones to understand them as they
may influence the success of project delivery.
Managing projects in the post-disaster environment requires paramount attention to
accelerate the process and improve the human settlement environment (Karunasena and
Rameezdeen, 2010). While some researches on PDRPs have focused on natural disasters like;
Tsunami and Sri Lanka (Kennedy et al., 2008; Karunasena and Rameezdeen, 2010; Lyons,
2009) earthquake in (Kopaei, 2009; Kamani-Fard et al., 2012; Moloney, 2014), Hurricanes in
both developed and developing countries, little has been written with a focus on post war or Post-disaster
man-made disaster like civil war in Angola. Most of studies on PDRPs were conceptual reconstruction
(Ismail et al., 2014; Mannakkara and Wilkinson, 2014; Hidayat and Egbu, 2010) and a few with
empirical data focused on challenges for PDRPs (Zuo et al., 2009) in a different context.
projects in
Furthermore, some of the researches on challenges focused on the International Angola
Organizations (INGOs) as implementing agency within different contexts (Wardak et al.,
2012; Mannakkara and Wilkinson, 2014). Some of these challenges seem to dominate in many
researches, i.e. Securing finance, time overruns and lack of technical staff (Wardak et al., 2012; 769
Bilau et al., 2018), while some studies focused on failure factors and causes of PDRPs
(LaBrosse, 2006; Hidayat and Egbu, 2010). Failure factors may not necessarily be challenges
in a post-war environment. The fact that challenges do exist in other studies and contexts
may not necessarily be challenges in Angola and therefore analysing the critical project
management challenges may sound a better option. There is need to explore critical project
management challenges for managing PDR, with a focus on public sector perspective as they
may have negative impact on the successful delivery of PDRPs.

2. Literature review
2.1 Difference between project management and normal operations management
Project management is normally reserved for focused, non-repetitive, time-limited activities
with some degree of risk; it plays a substantial role in major industrial and development
projects (PMI, 2013). Some major development projects have failed to reach their goals due to
the absence of coherence between the project aims and techniques used for their realization
(Rwelamila and Purushottam, 2012). Post-disaster reconstruction practices that lack a
strategy compatible with, the severity of the disaster, community culture and socio-economic
requirements, environmental condition, government legislation and technological situations,
frequently fail to operate and respond effectively to the needs of the wider affected population
(Sadiqi et al., 2012). Table 1 presents the differences between project management and normal
operations management.
For the purposes of this study, the focus is on post disaster projects and related
methodologies in a post-disaster environment, as opposed to normal day-to-day operations.
They define strategic project management (SPM) as “the process of managing complex
projects by combining business strategy and project management techniques in order to
implement the business strategy and to deliver organizational breakthroughs”. Table 1
shows clear that conventional project management is an integral part of strategic planning
within organisations, which broadens its original scope from being mechanistic and rigid
(adhering strictly to the more technical aspects of project management) to allow for a certain
level of flexibility and adaptability throughout the life cycle of the project. It also allows limits
in scope and time compared to the normal operations.

Project Operations

Revolutionary change Evolutionary change

Disequilibrium Equilibrium
Limit in time and scope Eternal
Unbalanced objectives Balanced objectives Table 1.
Unique Repetitive Differences between
Transient resources Stable resources project management
Goal oriented Role oriented and normal operations
Effectiveness Efficiency management
IJMPB 2.2 Managing PDRPs
14,3 Uniqueness of the PDRPs originates from a variety of factors such as the relatively large number
of stakeholders that are to collaborate in a turbulent environment (LaBrosse, 2006); the complex
interactions of social, technological and economic factors; and the need for a cultural perspective
to address the peculiarities of the disaster-affected areas (Baroudi and Rapp, 2011). PDRPs
typically deal with a high level of uncertainty and complexity; many local and international
organizations compete for scarce resources, and the donors who finance the projects may ask for
770 quick results due to a desire for normality (Hidayat and Egbu, 2010). After examining various
PDRP failures across the world, Wardak et al. (2012), identify five major common factors behind
failures: problems with community participation; relocation issues; fraudulent use and the waste
of project funds; and the ignorance of local needs and culture. According to Lin et al. (2017), “time
pressure is the main factor which makes disasters unique, distorts the conventional project
management practice that would work under normal circumstances, and calls for a more
contextualized application of project management methodologies”. Kalkman and de Waard
(2017) argue that the linearity and rationality assumptions of the conventional PM should be
questioned in the chaotic environment of PDRPs, where it is difficult to set clear goals and
boundaries, define tangible end products, and establish well-working monitoring and control
mechanisms in a hierarchical way. The authors contend that, the involvement of stakeholders
and providing flexibility can be more highly valued than control. Authors contend that, it is
logical to assume that challenges differ with locations (Mannakkara and Wilkinson, 2014).
Therefore, PM challenges for managing DPRPs in post war environment need to be known.

2.3 Project management practices for post-disaster environment in Angola

According to Cain (2007), project management and implementation skills are scarce in Sub-
Saharan Africa, and even more so in rural areas. In this context, Angola like any other
country in the sub-Saharan Africa has no country known methodology for managing PDR
projects. In Angola, on the whole, the implementation of ongoing projects has encountered a
certain number of difficulties including (Cain, 2007; ADB, 2011; Rwelamila and Purushottam,
2012): (1) the country’s low institutional capacity; (2) lack of project management knowledge
base and familiarity with procedures for the procurement of goods and services on the part of
project managers; (3) slow procedures and difficulties encountered in the recruitment of staff
of project management units in certain sectors such as health; and (4) lack of structures on the
ground to closely monitor the Bank’s portfolio. All these constraints translated into a low
absorption rate of resources allocated to the country.

2.4 Issues in PDRPs

There are large uncertainties associated with the future performance of the built environment
due to changes in regional and local scale climatic conditions (Hayles, 2010). Researchers have
identified challenges for PDRPs. Typical cases of post-disaster reconstruction project failure
often refer to problems in integration (Ye and Okada, 2002), financial (Freeman, 2007),
inappropriate assessment (Kennedy et al., 2008), communication and coordination (Chang
et al., 2010), inadequacies of resource and procurement (Chang et al., 2011), ineffective design
(Ika et al., 2012), transportation (Matsumaru et al., 2012), corruption (World Bank, 2013) and
delay (Iwai and Tabuchi, 2013; Moloney, 2014; Boen, 2006; Nazara and Resosudarmo, 2007;
Matsumaru et al., 2012). Some of these issues or problems are what are termed as challenges
by other researchers.

2.5 Challenges for managing PDRPs

Some studies suggest that, funding for reconstruction and finding location for relocate the
disaster-affected communities are two problems which may affect PDRPs in the absence of
policies on disaster management (Hidayat and Egbu, 2010). Facilities also have to be provided Post-disaster
in new location, which are shops, schools, religious buildings that are necessary to support reconstruction
affected communities to back to pre-disaster daily live. During construction stage of
reconstruction, common problems found in reconstruction are cost escalation, inadequate
projects in
supply of material and labour and quality of construction. Zuo et al. (2009) in their study of Angola
reconstruction in Aceh, Indonesia, find competence issues, field staff have not had the
relevant experience or training to manage large and complex project. Inadequate of worker’s
skill may leads to poor quality of constructed facility. Information and communication 771
processes was mentioned as one of the challenges (Chang et al., 2010; Hidayat and Egbu, 2010;
Moe and Pathranarakul, 2006). Communication systems for fast, accurate, reliable, and up- to-
date information are crucial. Its absence may affect the mechanisms of social interaction
between organizations which may facilitate overlaps and the waste of time, material, and
financial resources (Chang et al., 2010). Improving coordination and communication can
enhance trust and team cohesion between task managers and coordinators, as well as
between project owners and managers (Chang et al., 2010). Communication and coordination
also contribute to other goals of PDRPM, such as transparency, accountability, participation,
consensus-building and mitigation of corruption risk (Jha et al., 2010). Although some studies
present success factors for successful delivery of a project, Wardak et al. (2012) added that it is
clear that effective community participation is a major key to success in PDR. Affected
communities have the understanding that is crucial for designing reconstruction projects. In
the absence of CSFs, there may be ineffective delivery of PDRPs.
Various studies have identified PDRPs as ineffective and of the least successful
humanitarian sectoral interventions. This has led to calls for appropriate one of the least
successful humanitarian sectoral interventions. This has led to calls for appropriate
measures and strategies to guide policymakers and practitioners towards achieving
effective PHR measures and strategies to guide policymakers and practitioners towards
achieving effective PDRP programmes. Numerous challenges arise in the post-disaster
context which make the management of PDRP programmes very challenging. The
ineffective management of these challenges may lead to ineffective delivery of the projects
and hamper the intended outcomes. The challenges as studied by various authors are:
following regulations related to the construction of Project Moloney (2014), Boen (2006),
Nazara and Resosudarmo (2007), Matsumaru et al. (2012), Rouhanizadeh et al. (2019b), Lack
of capacity of local government Moe and Pathranarakul (2006); Pells (2007), Chang et al.
(2010), Sharma et al. (2018), Project culture that fits the needs of community Qinghua et al.
(2009), Rouhanizadeh et al. (2019b), Russell et al. (2008), Enshassi et al. (2017), Lack of
securing adequate funding Freeman (2007), Walker et al. (2017), Hidayat and Egbu (2010),
Ismael et al. (2017), Enshassi et al. (2017), lack of clear accountability Ismail et al. (2014),
avoiding Corruption World Bank (2013), Ismael et al. (2017), Planning issues with starting
the project timely Crawford et al. (2012), Hidayat and Egbu (2010), Norling (2013), working
with limited or poor conditions/facilities Rouhanizadeh et al. (2019b), Working with poor or
restricted access to location Hidayat and Egbu (2010), Norling (2013), Fallahi (2007), Ismael
et al. (2017), Achieving planned quality of work Wardak et al. (2012), Kim and Choi (2013),
Land ownership or finding suitable land Rouhanizadeh et al. (2019b), Nazara and
Resosudarmo (2007), Securing adequate resources (materials and machinery) Boen (2006),
Ismael et al. (2017), Yi and Yang (2014), Ahmed (2011).
Additionally, negative effect of Political uncertainty Qinghua et al. (2009), Rouhanizadeh
et al. (2019b), lack of adequate technical staff/labour force Ismael et al. (2017), Moe and
Pathranarakul (2006), rising costs of materials and labour Hidayat and Egbu (2010), Ismael
et al. (2017). The challenges are in meeting the needs of the sudden increase in labour, and the
fact that local natural resources are in scarce supply (e.g. building material) which leads to
difficulties with following work schedules. Other challenges are: quality inspection and
IJMPB supervision Qinghua et al. (2009), Starting the project timely Boen (2006), Nazara and
14,3 Resosudarmo (2007), Matsumaru et al. (2012), Norling (2013), Enshassi et al. (2017), lack of
appropriate organization structure (Norling, 2013; Ismael et al., 2017), good coordination with
other stakeholders Crawford et al. (2012), Rouhanizadeh et al. (2019b), Pryke (2004), Liu et al.
(2016), Biswas (2019), relocation issues on establishing property rights Wardak et al. (2012),
lack of clear transparency processes Norling (2013), Chang et al. (2010), Hayles (2010). It is
vital to understand the challenges so as to ensure effective reconstruction, the parties
772 involved need to understand the importance of the factors influencing resource availability,
coordination issues, quality matters and their potential impacts on resourcing outcomes.
Consequently, it is vital for the Government; NGOs and international organizations to
investigate the challenges of working in Post Disaster Reconstruction environments and find
a concrete solution to overcome the complexity and uncertainties of PDR. This paper
analyses the critical challenges for managing PDRPs in Angola with a focus on Public
projects. Table 2 presents a summary of selected studies on challenges associated
with PDRPs.

Issue/challenge Authors

1. Following regulations related to the Moloney (2014), Boen (2006), Nazara and Resosudarmo (2007),
project Matsumaru et al. (2012), Rouhanizadeh et al. (2019b)
2. Lack of capacity of local government Moe and Pathranarakul (2006), Pells (2007), Chang et al. (2010),
Sharma et al. (2018)
3. Project culture that fits the needs of Qinghua et al. (2009), Rouhanizadeh et al. (2019b), Russell et al.
community (2008), Enshassi et al. (2017)
4. Lack of funding Freeman (2007), Walker et al. (2017), Hidayat and Egbu (2010),
Ismael et al. (2017), Enshassi et al. (2017)
5. Lack of clear accountability Ismail et al. (2014)
6. Improving Information and Chang et. al. (2010), Hidayat and Egbu (2010), Moe and
communication processes Pathranarakul (2006)
7. Corruption World Bank (2013), Ismael et al. (2017)
8. Planning issues Crawford et al., (2012), Hidayat and Egbu (2010), Norling (2013)
9. Working with limited or poor Rouhanizadeh et al. (2019b)
conditions/facilities
10. Working with poor or restricted Hidayat and Egbu (2010), Norling (2013), Fallahi (2007), Ismael et al.
access to location (2017)
11. Achieving quality of work Wardak et al. (2012), Kim and Choi (2013)
12. Land ownership Rouhanizadeh et al. (2019b), Nazara and Resosudarmo (2007)
13. Securing adequate resources Boen (2006), Ismael et al. (2017), Yi and Yang (2014), Ahmed (2011)
(materials and machinery)
14. Political uncertainity Qinghua et al. (2009), Rouhanizadeh et al. (2019b)
15. Lack of technical staff Ismael et al. (2017), Moe and Pathranarakul (2006)
16. Cost overuns of materials and labour Hidayat and Egbu (2010), Ismael et al. (2017)
17. Quality inspection and supervision Qinghua et al. (2009)
18. Starting the project timely Boen (2006), Nazara and Resosudarmo (2007), Matsumaru et al.
(2012), Norling (2013), Enshassi et al. (2017)
19. Lack of appropriate organization Norling (2013), Ismael et al. (2017)
structure
20. Good cordination with other Crawford et al. (2012), Rouhanizadeh et al. (2019b), Pryke (2004), Liu
stakeholders et al. (2016)*, Biswas (2019)
Table 2. 21. Relocation issues Wardak et al. (2012)
Summary of selected 22. Lack of clear transparency processes Norling (2013), Chang et al. (2010), Hayles (2010)
studies on challenges Note(s): *Liu et al. (2016) identified community engagement as one of the CSFs for strengthening
inhibiting the PDRPs infrastructure recovery management after disasters
3. Methodology Post-disaster
The study focused on gaining insights into critical challenges for managing PDRPs. The reconstruction
study is descriptive in nature as it sought to analyse challenges for post-disaster/conflict
reconstruction projects in the Angolan public sector (Rowley, 2014). A survey was used to
projects in
collect data and analyse social interactions. The descriptive approach was particularly useful Angola
for establishing the factors that shed light on challenges in the management of PDRPs in the
Angolan public sector. The survey research strategy was shaped by the need to generate
more incisive and robust findings on the project management practices that can contribute to 773
and improve PDR activities.

3.1 Survey administration

Angola has 18 Provinces and 157 Municipal Governments. The research focused on Luanda
province, which was selected as the study area because Luanda is the capital of Angola, had
suffered severe damage due to the civil war and had almost 80% of all PDRPs. The pilot study
was done to determine a list of DPR projects as sample frame in which 350 was determined to
be the population. A multi-stage sampling approach where the projects were first purposively
selected followed up by another purposive selection of the respondents from the selected
projects was adopted. Non-probability sampling hence purposive sampling techniques were
used to select the subjects to be included in the study, based on their knowledge of the
phenomenon (Saunders et al., 2016). The second reason for using the purposive sampling was
deemed appropriate because the sample was hand-picked based upon the researchers’ first-
hand knowledge of the indigenous construction firms (Rowley, 2014; Saunders et al., 2016),
a decision supported in previous post disaster recovery studies such as Karunasena and
Rameezdeen (2010); in Sri Lanka.
The sample size was 150 projects and respondents from the central, provincial and
municipal governments that have been involved in the reconstruction projects were
selected from Table 2. The study purposely selected reconstruction projects that have been
completed in the last five years or running for at least five years and in the final stages. The
techniques were considered suitable due to the fact that selection of respondents was based
on their ability to provide relevant information on challenges for managing PDRPs. The
PDR process is viewed from the construction project management perspective, thus
respondents for this research were construction project stakeholders, which in the Angolan
context consists of contractors, consultants and the local government (as project owner or
client). Table 3 presents the demographic information of selected public involved in the
survey.
Four groups of respondents identified are indicated in Table 2 and respondents were
purposively selected from them. Questionnaires were emailed to 80 respondents who were at
a distance due to the nature of activities which demanded them to travel from one place to

Central government Provincial Municipal or local

Participants department governments governments Total

National officials or 13 0 0 13
directors
Consultants 10 14 0 24 Table 3.
Contractors 13 25 50 88 Demographic
Managers or 0 25 200 225 information of selected
coordinators public officials
Total 36 64 250 350 involved in the survey
IJMPB another and 120 were hand delivered and administered by 3 research assistants.
14,3 Correspondingly, previous research on the subject matter was perused. The questionnaire
contained active and attribute variables. Twenty-one challenges extracted from the literature
formed a list of factors in the questionnaire for respondents to rate using active variables
(1 (Not critical at all), 2 (Less critical), 3 (Fairly critical), 4 (Critical), 5 (Very critical). Out of 200
questionnaires, 53 were returned through email and 77 were collected by the research
assistants, equating to 130. All 130 were adequately filled in for analysis. The data was
774 cleaned and analysed using IBM SPSS 21, from which measure of central tendency, mean,
median and standard deviation was used. Consequently, one sample statistics and t-test were
used to ascertain significant PDRP management challenges and Kendall’s coefficient of
concordance was used to establish the level of agreement and consistence among groups of
respondents.

3.2 Research instrument: the questionnaire

The questionnaire was divided into the following three distinct sections
(1) Section 1 encompassed the general demographic information on participating
organisations such as gender, educational background, organisation function, and
project management experience. To enable cross comparative analysis as part of a
robust data mining protocol, the responses were nominally coded questions so that
they be entered one of various pre-prepared categories (cf. Forza, 2002).
(2) Section 2 comprised of the rating and ranking of the 21 challenges impacting the
management of PDRP during the planning and construction stages.
(3) Section 3 captured the rating and ranking of the 12 challenges affecting the post-
disaster reconstruction projects.
The questionnaire contained active and attribute variables. Twenty-one challenges extracted
from the literature formed a list of factors/challenges in the questionnaire for respondents to
rate using active variables (“1 5 not challenging at all”, “2 5 “less challenging”,
“3” 5 “somewhat challenging”, “4” 5 “Challenging”, and “5” 5 very challenging). One
major challenge experienced and reported in this study was identifying respondents. To
address this challenge more than the required number (200) of questionnaires was sent out for
respondents. The total number of different categories of project practitioners regarded as the
population is 350 (three hundred and fifty). As shown in Table 4, Out of 200 questionnaires, 53
were returned through email and 77 were collected by the research assistants, equating to
130. All 130 were adequately filled in for analysis.

3.3 Data analysis

The survey data was analysed using the IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS)
version 25. Three methods were employed viz:
(1) Parametric tests undertaken sought to measure the significance of the project
management “challenges” affecting the management of PDRP during the planning
and construction stages practices. One-sample t-tests were then used to measure for
compares the mean of a single sample to a predetermined value to determine if the
sample mean is significantly greater or less than the test value of 3.5 (Pallant, 2005).
(2) Descriptive statistics tests such as measures of central tendencies and frequency
analysis enabled further ranking analysis to obtain relative criticality of the project
management challenges to PDRP.
Characteristics attribute Frequency %
Post-disaster
reconstruction
Education projects in
High school 43 33
Diploma 47 35 Angola
Undergraduate degree 20 15
Postgraduate degree 15 12
Others 5 5 775
Total 130 100
Gender
Male 90 69
Female 40 31
Total 130 100
Respondent’s organisation
Central government 15 12
Provincial government 40 31
Local government 30 23
Consultants 20 15
Contractors 25 19
Total 130 100
Function’s within organisation
Project manager 60 46
Construction manager 24 19
Consultants 20 15
Project clients/owners 20 15
Project engineer/designers 6 5
130 100
Experience in project management role (Years)
<1 15 12
1–5 50 38
6–10 60 46 Table 4.
11–15 4 3 Demographic
More than 15 1 1 characteristics of the
Total 130 100 respondents

(3) The Coefficient of Variation (COV) was used as a general measure of the standardized
skewness or variability of the responses (Hatamieh et al., 2018). This was computed
using the standard deviation as a percentage of the mean score. Rank differentiation
was also used where two or more “challenges” had the same mean values. This was
achieved through examination and selection of the variable (challenge) with the
lowest standard deviation or COV.
The data analysis techniques described have previously been used in other PDRP related
studies in emerging economies such as Sri Lanka; and Iran, as well as survey related research
(Chileshe and Kikwasi, 2014; Manu et al., 2019).

3.4 Characteristics of the sample

The characteristics of the respondents and their organisations are summarised in Table 4.
3.4.1 Education qualification. As shown in Table 5, the majority of them had obtained a
Diploma (35%), while 32% had obtained a degree and above, of whom 69% were male and
31% were female. This implies that, males get involved more in construction industry than
IJMPB females which makes it a non-traditional industry. Most respondents were in the provincial
14,3 government followed by local government officials. A large percentage of respondents were
experienced, 46% having been in practice for more than 6 yrs followed by those with more
than 1 year (38%). Information obtained was reliable as it is from experienced respondents.
3.4.2 Respondents organizations and functions’. Table 5 shows that the majority (31.0%) of
the respondents are drawn from the provincial government, followed by local government
(23.0%). The proportion of the respondents in terms of functions was: The majority (46 %)
776 were project managers followed by construction managers (19%).
3.4.3 Experience in project management role, and gender. The majority (46%) as having
considerable experience in the project management role of the industry (6–10 yrs), followed
by those with more than 1 year, but less than 5 yrs of experience (38%). Further examination
of Table 5 indicates that, the study was dominated by male respondents (69%).
3.4.4 Time in managing post-disaster/conflict projects of the respondents. Respondents
indicated the time they have been involved in managing post-disaster/conflict reconstruction
projects. Table 5 reflect these results.
Thirty-eight (n 5 50) percent of respondents indicated that they have been managing post-
disaster/conflict reconstruction projects for 1–5 yrs. Thirty eight percent (38%) however
indicated that they had never been involved in managing post-disaster/conflict
reconstruction projects. Twelve (n 5 15) per cent of the group had 6–10 yrs of experience.
Only 1 individual (1%) had 16–20 yrs of experience. Four (3%) respondents had 11–16 yrs of
experience in managing reconstruction projects. It is correct to say 64% has been involved in
PDRPs for more than 1 year, which gives the confidence in reliability of the results.

3.5 Reliability analysis

In order to measure the reliability and internal consistency, the composite challenges,
incorporating all the 21 variables, the Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficient was computed using
the IBM SPSS (version 25) software. The need for undertaking the reliability analysis is
further amplified by Forza (2002). The overall computed Cronbach’s alpha (α) value for the 21
items was 0.919. This was deemed as appropriate and acceptable as the threshold value for
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α) 5 0.7 (cf. Nunnally, 1978).

4. Survey results and findings

4.1 Challenging type of post-disaster reconstruction projects
The questionnaire required respondents to indicate the most challenging type of post-
disaster/conflict reconstruction project their organization had faced in the last 5 yrs Table 6
reflect these results.

Time involvement in PD/c projects Number of respondents %

Less than 1 year 10 8

1–5 yrs 50 38
Table 5. 6–10 yrs 15 12
Respondents’ time 11–15 yrs 4 3
involvement in 16–20 yrs 1 1
managing post- More than 20 yrs 0 0
disaster/conflict None 50 38
projects Total 130 100.0
 Thirty-nine percent of the respondents (39%) not specified in the dropdown list of the Post-disaster
questionnaire make up the majority of most challenging type of post-disaster/conflict reconstruction
reconstruction project for the respondents’ organization. Possibly respondents did not see the
difference between development and post-disaster reconstruction projects and for them all
projects in
projects are development projects. Fifteen per cent (n 5 20) indicated, housing as being the Angola
most challenging project type. As Table 6 shows 15% of respondents indicated that road and
bridge construction as the most challenging project they had ever done, while 15% mentioned
schools and hospitals. Four per cent (n 5 5) of respondents indicated animal husbandry 777
project type as organization’s most challenging project while 2% pointed to Agriculture.

4.2 Overall ranking of the challenges affecting the management of PDR projects
Table 7 shows the results of mean score analysis and one-sample t-tests of the 21 challenges
affecting the management of PDRP. In the case of having equal means, the criterion with a
lower standard deviation is ranked higher since a smaller standard deviation illustrates that
the values are closer to the calculated arithmetic mean.
Examination of the results reveal that the mean scores of the 21 challenges impacting
upon the management of PDRP ranged from 3.439 (securing finance for the reconstruction
project) to 3.792 (working with poor or restricted access to location) with an average score of
3.64. Further examination of Tables 7 and 8 shows that the COV of the challenges also ranged
between 24.54% and 35.48% illustrating the different levels of agreement amongst the
respondents, with 6 challenges which are close to the mean score whereas 10 of the challenges
are statistically significant different (p < 0.05) for PDRPs in Angola.
Further examination of Tables 7 and 8 shows that, of the 12 critical challenges, the first 4
such as; the working with poor or restricted access to location PDRP challenge was the highest
ranked based on the overall sample (mean 5 3.792). The higher value of standard deviation
(SD 5 0.970) reinforces the lack of consensus among respondents in ranking this challenge
highly. This challenge was also statistically significant different (t (129) 5 4.179,
p 5 0.000 < 0.05). The second overall ranked challenge impacting the PDRP during
construction and planning was projects culture that fits the needs of local people
(mean 5 3.785). The challenge also has a lower value of standard deviation (std.
dev 5 0.964), this factor was nevertheless statistically significant (t (129) 5 3.354,
p 5 0.008 < 0.05). The third overall ranked challenge impacting the PDRP was that of
improving the capacity of local government, (mean 5 3.777). The lower value of the standard
deviation (SD 5 0.967) further reinforced the respondents’ consensus in their higher ranking
of this challenge. Furthermore, this challenge was statistically significant different
(t (129) 5 3.258, p 5 0.001 < 0.05). This was followed by “minimizing the negative effects of
political instability” which was ranked fourth (mean 5 3.762) and assessed as statistically

Most challenging type of PD/cr projects Number of respondents %

Housing 20 15
Office 10 8
Animal husbandry 5 4
Industry 2 2 Table 6.
Road and bridge 20 15 Most challenging post-
School and hospital 20 15 disaster/conflict
Agriculture 2 2 reconstruction projects
Other 51 39 type of respondents’
Total 130 100 organization
IJMPB
14,3 95% confidence
interval of the
Sig. (2- Mean difference
Challenges impacting the PDR t df Tailed) difference Lower Upper

Good coordination with other 2.078 129 0.040* 0.37692 0.5593 0.1945
778 stakeholders
Securing adequate resources (material 0.346 129 0.730 0.50000 0.6732 0.3268
and machinery)
Securing adequate labour force 0.616 129 0.539 0.43846 0.6113 0.2656
Improving the capacity of local 3.258 129 0.001* 0.22308 0.3908 0.0553
government
Achieving planned construction quality 2.998 129 0.003* 0.29231 0.4617 0.1229
Having adequate quality inspection of 1.728 129 0.086 0.31538 0.5158 0.1150
construction work
Projects culture that fits the needs of local 3.354 129 0.001* 0.21538 0.3827 0.0480
people
Putting in place an appropriate 1.952 129 0.053 0.30000 0.4916 0.1084
organization structure
Minimizing the negative effects of 3.093 129 0.002* 0.23846 0.4056 0.0714
political instability
Finding suitable land/location for the 0.669 129 0.505 0.45385 0.6386 0.2691
reconstruction project
Following regulations related to the 1.200 129 0.232 0.44615 0.6191 0.2732
reconstruction
Securing finance for the reconstruction 0.150 129 0.881 0.56154 0.7732 0.3498
project
Improving information and 1.287 129 0.200 0.46154 0.6359 0.2871
communication processes
Dealing with rising costs of materials and 0.174 129 0.862 0.51538 0.6899 0.3409
labour
Starting the construction project timely 2.250 129 0.026* 0.35385 0.5357 0.1720
Establishing property rights 2.855 129 0.005* 0.29231 0.4503 0.1343
Avoiding corruption in the reconstruction 0.985 129 0.327 0.43077 0.6153 0.2462
process
Having clear accountability in the 2.082 129 0.039* 0.36154 0.5203 0.2028
reconstruction process
Having clear transparency in processes in 3.022 129 0.003* 0.29231 0.4617 0.1229
the reconstruction project
Working with limited or poor conditions, 1.335 129 0.184 0.36154 0.5449 0.1782
facilities and infrastructure at project
location
Table 7. Working with poor or restricted access to 4.179 129 0.000* 0.20769 0.3760 0.0394
Results of the one location
sample t-test Note(s): df 5 degrees of freedom, *Significant at the 95 per cent level (p < 0.05)

significant different (t (129) 5 3.093, p 5 0.002 < 0.05) fall between (24–25) levels of agreement
close to the mean. Whereas, the other two challenges are relocation issues with establishing
property rights (mean 5 3.708), the challenge was also statistically significant different
(t (129) 5 2.855, p 5 0.005 < 0.05). The lower value of the standard deviation (SD 5 0.910)
further reinforced the respondents’ consensus in the ranking of this challenge. The 6th
challenge is having clear accountability (mean 5 3.639). The challenge was also statistically
significant different (t (129) 5 2.08, p 5 0.039 < 0.05). The lower value of the standard deviation
(SD 5 0.915) further reinforced the respondents’ consensus in the ranking of this challenge.
 In the lower quartile, finding suitable land / location for the reconstruction project Post-disaster
(mean 5 3.546), improving information and communication processes (mean 5 3.539), securing reconstruction
adequate resources (material and machinery) (mean 5 3.500), dealing with rising costs of
materials and labour (2.485) and securing finance for the reconstruction projects (mean 5 3.438)
projects in
ranked 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st respectively. All of the least ranked challenges were not Angola
statistically significant different: finding suitable land / location for the reconstruction project
(t (129) 5 0.669, p 5 0.505 > 0.05); improving information and communication processes
(t (129) 5 1.287, p 5 0.200 > 0.05); securing adequate resources (material and machinery) 779
(t (129) 5 0.346, p 5 0.730 > 0.05); dealing with rising costs of materials and labour (t (129) 5
0.174, p 5 0.862 > 0.05); and securing finance for the reconstruction project (t (129) 5 0.150,
p 5 0.81 > 0.05). The following sub section discusses some of the 6 challenges.

5. Discussion of findings
The results of the data analysis presented in the previous sections show that only 10 out of the
21 identified challenges are statistically significant and 6 out of 10 have levels of agreement
which is close to the mean and regarded as among the critical challenges (Tables 7 and 8).
However, the majority (19) of the challenges attained a mean value greater than 3.5. The
following subsections present a brief discussion of challenges in the top 5 and the last 2
challenges in the lower quartiles.
(1) Working with poor or restricted access to location
The highest ranked challenge was “working with poor or restricted access to location”. The
finding is consistent with several earlier studies that report that working with poor or

Std
Challenges impacting PDRPs Meana dev COV Rank

Working with poor or restricted access to location 3.792 0.970 25.58 1

Projects culture that fits the needs of local people 3.785 0.964 25.47 2
Improving the capacity of local government 3.777 0.967 25.60 3
Minimizing the negative effects of political instability 3.762 0.963 25.60 4
Establishing property rights 3.708 0.910 24.54 5
Having clear accountability in the reconstruction process 3.639 0.915 25.14 6
Having clear transparency in processes in the reconstruction project 3.708 0.976 26.32 7
Achieving planned construction quality 3.708 0.976 26.32 8
Putting in place an appropriate organization structure 3.700 1.104 29.84 9
Having adequate quality inspection of construction work 3.685 1.155 31.34 10
Starting the construction project timely 3.646 1.048 28.74 11
Working with limited or poor conditions, facilities and infrastructure at 3.639 1.057 29.05 12
project location
Good coordination with other stakeholders 3.623 1.051 29.01 13
Avoiding corruption in the reconstruction process 3.569 1.063 29.78 14
Securing adequate labour force 3.562 0.996 27.96 15
Following regulations related to the reconstruction 3.554 0.997 28.05 16
Finding suitable land/ location for the reconstruction project 3.546 1.065 30.03 17
Improving information and communication processes 3.539 1.005 28.40 18
Securing adequate resources (material and machinery) 3.500 0.9981 28.52 19
Dealing with rising costs of materials and labour 3.485 1.006 31.87 20 Table 8.
Securing finance for the reconstruction project 3.439 1.220 35.48 21 Stakeholder’s
Note(s): amean score of the PDRP challenges where 5 5 strongly agree; 4 5 agree; 3 5 neutral; 2 5 disagree; perception on the
1 5 strongly disagree. The higher the mean score the more critical the challenge to PDPR; COV 5 Coefficient of ranking of challenges
variation where between 24–25 levels of agreement close to the mean to PDRPs in Angola
IJMPB restricted access to location is one of the major challenges in management PDRP during
14,3 planning and construction stages (Rouhanizadeh et al., 2019b; Chang et al., 2011; Sharma et al.,
2018). For example, within the context of Nepal, one of the main challenges around managing
the post-disaster reconstruction was due to lack of statistical system, some people residing as
a temporary resident could not get any relief materials and fund. Likewise, Chang et al. (2011)
identified the lack of alternative access to affected areas as major concerns related to logistics
and supply chain.
780
(2) Projects culture that fits the needs of local people
The challenge of “projects culture that fits the needs of local people” was the second highest
ranked and has been raised by several studies (Qinghua et al., 2009; Rouhanizadeh et al.,
2019b; Russell et al., 2008; Enshassi et al., 2017; Sharma et al., 2018; Rwelamila and
Purushottam 2012; Rwelamila et al., 1999). For example, Enshassi et al. (2017) identified
“preserving local cultures” among the highly ranked factors influencing the PDRPM context
in the Gaza Strip. The significance of this challenge is further noted by Sharma et al. (2018)
who identified “negligence of local culture” among the crucial challenges for remote area
whereas public participation, manpower shortage, rehabilitation and retrofitting and techno-
legal regime are for urban area. The implication of this finding is that the Angolan public
sector needs to take into consideration the local cultural needs in order to avoid problems
associated with post-disaster reconstruction during the planning and construction phase.
(3) Improving the capacity of local government
The UNDP (2009) has identified the following three points where capacity is grown and
natured: in an enabling environment, in organizations and within individuals. Therefore, the
third ranked challenge facing organizations (i.e. NGO and public sector) was that “improving
the capacity of local government”. The finding is also consistent with previous studies (Moe and
Pathranarakul, 2006; Pells, 2007; Chang et al., 2010; Sharma et al., 2018; Hayat et al., 2019). For
instance, Sharma et al. (2018) established the capacity related issues such as the lack of
reconstruction experiences or preparedness among the challenges that affected the
reconstruction in Nepal. Angola like Nepal has had its fair share of such disasters. Whilst
the focus of that study might have been on CSFs, absence of those factors could be constituted
as challenges. Likewise, capacity-building program has been recommended in order to
emphasize the need to think long term among governments and communities within the Gaza
strip (Enshassi et al., 2017); and human resource capacity considered as one of the most
important factors affecting the capacity of the local government in road maintenance (Hayat
et al., 2019). Not employing technical expertise in planning process, as a result of limited
capacity has also been identified among the barriers to post disaster recovery (Rouhanizadeh
et al., 2018). Hence, the emergent implication of this finding is that Angolan public sector
organizations would have to re-align their training programs in order to improving the capacity
of local government. Most pertinent is the fact that challenges to PDRPs is critical in this
context because the government is the implementing organization. Redevelopment programs
such as skills training and education have also been identified as pathways for developing and
strengthening relationships with local communities and institutions (Chang et al., 2011).
(4) Minimizing the negative effects of political instability
The fourth ranked challenge to PDRPs was “minimizing the negative effects of political
instability”. Extant literature on developing countries (and specifically Angola) has
highlighted the challenges around minimizing the negative effects of political instability
and how it affects the management of PDRP especially during the planning and construction
stage (Qinghua et al., 2009; Jha et al., 2010; Chang et al., 2011; Rouhanizadeh et al., 2019b;
Rathnayake et al., 2020). For example, as observed by Chang et al. (2011), political elements Post-disaster
are among those influencing the project resource availability and thus the project reconstruction
performance. Political uncertainty was also among the issues and Challenges faced by
NGOs during reconstruction activities during the Tsunami, and Earthquake disasters (Ismail
projects in
et al., 2014). The Gaza strip, like Angola has experienced political turmoil, and this challenge Angola
was among those ranked higher as influencing organizational behaviour in the Gaza Strip
(Enshassi et al., 2017). This suggests that within the Indonesian context, there is political
stability in comparison to Angola. 781
(5) Relocation issues with establishing property rights during the reconstruction project
According to the UNDP (2009), relocation issues exist when rights holders are not able to make
use of their spaces hence move to another location. Therefore, the fifth challenge to PDRP was
“relocation issues with establishing property rights during the reconstruction projects”. The
finding is also consistent with previous studies on the management of PDRP Wardak et al.
(2012), Mannakkara and Wilkinson (2014). For instance, “establishing property rights was
ranked highest among the 12 CSFs for PDR housing projects. Another study argued that
donors who finance the projects may ask for quick results due to a desire for normality and this
may affect the programme details and objectives, decision making processes, funding
availability and time scales (Wardak et al., 2012).
(6) Dealing with rising costs of materials and labour
Although this challenge of “dealing with rising costs of materials and labour” was ranked 20th
overall (mean score 5 3.485), its criticality is well acknowledged in literature. However, one of
plausible explanations for the lower ranking of this challenge is that in post disaster
conditions, an increase in the need for construction labor and materials is normal
(Rouhanizadeh et al., 2019). There is also a push in the majority of developing counties with
“donor-driven approaches” where the government or an external funding agency leads the
reconstruction process with the help of consultants and contractors procured for the project
(Karunasena and Rameezdeen, 2010; Chang et al., 2010). Despite the above contradictory
findings, some procurement related issues have equally been assigned in PDRP related
literature (Boen, 2006; Ismael et al., 2017; Yi and Yang, 2014; Ahmed, 2011).
(7) Securing finance for the reconstruction project
Securing finance for the reconstruction project is ranked 21st by all the respondents. This is
a rather surprising and contradictory result as “sufficient funding availability” has been
previously ranked higher as a CSF for reconstruction projects, and the funding for PDRP
also deemed as quite complex as funding due the nature of being funneled through multiple
sources. More so, majority of PDRPs use the donor-driven reconstruction approach with
guaranteed funding (Chang et al., 2011). The challenge of “availability of donor funding” was
equally ranked higher within Gaza strip context (Enshassi et al., 2017), and with the poor
funding in Sri Lanka attributed to the lack of inclusion of such funding and relief agencies
in the defined DRR process (Rathnayake et al., 2020). For instance, funding/money are
needed by the contractor to mobilize the site and procure all the necessary materials, tools,
plant and equipment needed at the site. Some of these challenges inter dependably affect
other challenges. So proper and effective planning is very important for the effective
delivery of reconstruction projects (Bilau et al., 2018). However, one plausible explanation
for this lower ranking is due to the governments in developing countries being reliant on
donor funding for reconstruction project, hence the stakeholders not concerned about the
source, but assured funding. The results further showed that characteristics of the
environment after the disaster puts more pressure on management of the projects with the
IJMPB highest impact on ability to control the project. For example, this section has shown that if
14,3 there will be resource problems and costs and time overruns automatically the project
may fail.

6. Conclusions
Angola is considered among the 10 countries with a high level of risk, and thus affected by
782 natural catastrophes which require post-disaster reconstruction. Despite the benefits of
reconstruction which offer opportunities to learn from the disaster, and a number of studies
have been conducted on the project management challenges impacting the effective delivery
post-disaster reconstruction in developed and developing economies, no study has been made
on the challenges to post-disaster reconstruction amongst the public sector organisations in
Angola. The purpose of this research was to investigate the perception of public sector
stakeholders on key project management challenges impacting on the post-disaster
reconstruction projects (PDRPs) during the construction and planning stages in Angola.
This involved a questionnaire survey of the project management practitioners working with
planning, provincial government organisations including consultants, and contractors. The
results demonstrated that the project management practitioners ranked the following
challenges as critical and within acceptable levels of agreement (24–25) in relation to
Kendall’s coefficient of concordance:
(1) Working with poor or restricted access to location (mean 5 3.792)
(2) Project culture that fits the needs of local people (mean 5 3.785)
(3) Improving the capacity of local government (mean 5 3.777)
(4) Minimizing the negative effects of local people (mean 5 3.762); and
(5) Relocation issues by establishing property rights (mean 5 3.708)
Whereas, the least ranked challenges were: securing adequate resources (material and
machinery), dealing with rising costs of materials and labour and securing finance for the
reconstruction project.
One of the main contributions of this study lies in the identification of an ordered grouped
set of project management challenges for post-disaster reconstruction projects in Angola.
Another significant contribution of this paper is that it sheds light and provides insights on
the understanding of the challenges affecting the post-disaster reconstruction projects in
post-war environment, an area previously under-researched. It also expands the efforts of
studying and evaluating the challenges across the developing economies and particularly
within the Angolan context.
The findings can be used by the practitioners (project teams) as a basis for providing the
foundation to address the challenges during planning stage to improve projects delivery in
the future. Secondly, the findings provide also insights into how the uniqueness of the post-
disaster environments and implementing agency affect the conventional project
management processes. There is also scope for project managers or stakeholders in post-
disaster/conflict reconstruction projects to view and expect a post-disaster/conflict
reconstruction project to be different from a project under normal condition. The
challenges in post-disaster/conflict reconstruction projects will affect the process and
outputs of post-disaster/conflict reconstruction projects.
Thirdly, the findings could be used to reflect on the need to formulate policies appropriate
to post disaster environments, which among other issues could address building policies,
which could include land ownership regulations and procedures together with property
rights.
6.1 Limitations of the study Post-disaster
While the study makes several contributions to post-disaster reconstruction research reconstruction
practice, the following limitations of the study should be acknowledged: Firstly, The study
was restricted to one province and Country (out of 18) namely, Luanda, Angola. Therefore,
projects in
the findings may not be generalized to public sector organisations with different contexts, Angola
operating in other countries. Secondly, the study only employed statistics analysis such as
descriptive and inferential statistics which take into consideration the strength of association
among the challenges. Future studies could use rigorous statistical analysis such as 783
regression analyses, multivariate techniques such as factor analysis, and structural equation
modelling (SEM). Such an approach would enable the reduction of the number of challenges
into smaller sub-sets which could thus be used to identify a relatively small number of factor
groupings. Mapping of the identified challenges to the respective planning and construction
stages is potential for further research as would minimize the challenges falling within the
planning and post construction stages.

References
ADB (2011), Angola 2011-2015 Country Strategy Paper and 2010 Country Portfolio Performance
Review, African Development Bank, Abidjan.
Ahmed, I. (2011), “An overview of post-disaster permanent housing reconstruction in developing countries”,
International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 148-164.
Baroudi, B.M. and Rapp, R. (2011), “A project management approach to disaster response and recovery
operations”, 36th Annual AUBEA Conference, Bond University, Queensland, Gold Coast, pp. 17-28.
Bilau, A. and Witt, E. (2016), “An analysis of issues for the management of post-disaster housing
reconstruction”, International Journal of Strategic Property Management, Vol. 20, pp. 265-276.
Bilau, A., Witt, E. and Lill, I. (2018), “Practice framework for the management of post disaster housing
reconstruction programmes”, Sustainability Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2, p. 29.
Biswas, A. (2019), “Exploring Indian post-disaster temporary housing strategy through a comparative
review”, International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 14-35.
Boen, T. (2006), “Building A safer Aceh, reconstruction of houses, one year after the December 26,
2004 Tsunami”, 40th Anniversary of Trisakti University, “Answering the Challenges in Today’s
Civil Engineering”, 26 January 2006.
Cain, A. (2007), “Housing microfinance in post-conflict Angola, Overcoming socioeconomic exclusion
through land tenure and access to credit”, Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 19, p. 361,
available at: http://eau.sagepub.com/content/19/2/361 (accessed 20 February 20).
Chang, Y., Wilkinson, S. and Brunsdon, D. (2010), “Resourcing challenges for post-disaster housing
reconstruction: a comparative analysis”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 247-264.
Chang, Y., Wilkinson, S., Potangaroa, R. and Seville, E. (2011), “Donor-driven resource procurement for
post-disaster reconstruction: constraints and actions”, Habitat International, Vol. 35, pp. 199-205.
Chileshe, N. and Kikwasi, G.J. (2014), “Critical success factors for implementation of risk assessment
and management practices within the Tanzanian construction industry”, Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 291-319.
Crawford, L., Langston, C. and Bajracharya, B. (2012), “Building capability for disaster resilience” in
Smith, S.D. (Ed.), Procs 28th Annual ARCOM Conference, Association of Researchers in
Construction Management, 3-5 September 2012, Edinburgh, pp. 123-132.
Enshassi, A., Chatat, T., Von Meding, J. and Forino, G. (2017), “Factors influencing post-disaster
reconstruction project management for housing provision in the Gaza Strip, Occupied
Palestinian Territories”, International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, Vol. 8, pp. 402-414.
IJMPB Fallahi, A. (2007), “Lessons learned from the housing re-construction following the Bam earthquake in
Iran”, The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 26-35.
14,3
Forza, C. (2002), “Survey research in operations management: a process-based perspective”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 152-194.
Freeman, P.K. (2007), “Allocation of post-disaster reconstruction financing to housing”, Building
Research and Information, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 37-41.
784 Hatamleh, M.T., Hiyassat, M., Sweis, G.J. and Sweis, R.J. (2018), “Fcators affecting the accuracy of cost
estimate: case of Jordan”, Engineering, Construction and Architecural Management, Vol. 25
No. 1, pp. 113-131.
Hayat, E., Haigh, R. and Amaratunga, D. (2019), “A framework for reconstruction of road
infrastructure after a disaster”, International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built
Environment, Vol. 10 Nos 2/3, pp. 151-166.
Hayles, C.S. (2010), “An examination of decision making in post disaster housing reconstruction”,
Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 103-122.
Hidayat, B. and Egbu, C. (2010), in Egbu, C. (Ed.), “A literature review of the role of project
management in post-disaster reconstruction”, Procs 26th Annual ARCOM Conference,
Association of Researchers in Construction Management, 6-8 September 2010, Leeds,
pp. 1269-1278.
Ika, L.A., Diallo, A. and Thuillier, D. (2012), “Critical success factors for World Bank projects: an
empirical investigation”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 105-116.
Ismael, D., Majid, A.T. and Roosli, R. (2017), “Analysis of variance of the effects of a project’s location
on key issues and challenges in post-disaster reconstruction projects”, Journal of Economies,
Vol. 5, p. 46, doi: 10.3390/economies5040046.
Ismail, D., Majidb, T.A., Rooslic, R. and Ab Samahd, N. (2014), “Project management success for post-
disaster reconstruction projects: international NGOs perspectives”, 4th International Conference
on Building Resilience, Building Resilience 2014, Vol. 18, Procedia Economics and Finance, 8-10
September 2014, Salford Quays, pp. 120-127.
Iwai, T. and Tabuchi, S. (2013), Survey: Housing Projects Delayed for more than 10,000 Evacuees, The
Asahi Shimbun.
Jha, A.K., Duyne Barenstein, J., Phelps, P.M., Pittet, D. and Sena, S. (2010), Safer Homes, Stronger
Communities: A Handbook for Reconstructing after Natural Disasters, World Bank Publications
World Bank, Washington DC.
Kalkman, J. and de Waard, E. (2017), “Inter-organizational disaster management projects: finding the
middle way between trust and control”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 35
No. 5, pp. 889-899.
Kamani-Fard, A., Ahmad, M.H. and Ossen, D.R. (2012), “The sense of place in the new homes of post-
Bam earthquake reconstruction”, International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built
Environment, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 220-236.
Karunasena, G. and Rameezdeen, R. (2010), “Post-disaster housing reconstruction: comparative study
of donor vs owner-driven approaches”, International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built
Environment, Vol. 1, pp. 173-191.
Kennedy, J., Ashmore, J., Babister, E. and Kelman, I. (2008), “The meaning of ‘build back better’:
evidence from post-tsunami Aceh and Sri Lanka”, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis
Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 25-36.
Kim, K.N. and Choi, J. (2013), “Breaking the vicious cycle of flood disasters: goals of project
management in post-disaster rebuild projects”, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 147-160.
Kopaei, M.G. (2009), Knowledge Transfer in Post-Disaster Reconstruction: The Problem of Post-Post-
Disaster Reconstruction, PhD. Thesis unpublished, McGill University, Montreal, QC.
LaBrosse, M. (2006), Cheetah Project Management, MAKLAF Press, 502 N. Division Street, Carson Post-disaster
City, NV 89703.
reconstruction
Liu, M., Scheepbouwer, E. and Giovinazzi, S. (2016), “Critical success factors for post-disaster
infrastructure recovery: learning from the Canterbury (NZ) earthquake recovery”, Disaster
projects in
Prevention and Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 685-700. Angola
Lin, Y., Kelemen, M. and Kiyomiya, T. (2017), “The role of community leadership in disaster recovery
projects: Tsunami lessons from Japan”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 35
No. 5, pp. 913-924. 785
Lyons, M. (2009), “Building back better: the large-scale impact of small-scale Approaches to
reconstruction”, World Development, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 385-398.
Mannakkara, S. and Wilkinson, S. (2014), “Re-conceptualising ‘Building Back Better’ to improve post
disaster recovery”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 327-341.
Manu, P., Mahamadu, A., Booth, C., Olomolaiye, P., Coker, A., Ibrahim, A. and Lamond, J. (2019),
“Infrastructure procurement capacity gaps in Nigeria public sector institutions”, Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 26 No. 9, pp. 1962-1985.
Matsumaru, R., Nagami, K. and Takeya, K. (2012), “Reconstruction of the Aceh Region following the
2004 Indian Ocean tsunami disaster: a transportation perspective”, IATSS Research, Vol. 36
No. 1, pp. 11-19.
Moe, T.L. and Pathranarakul, P. (2006), “An integrated approach to natural disaster management:
public project management and its critical success factors”, Disaster Prevention and
Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 396-413.
Moloney, A. (2014), Haitians Still Homeless, “Suffering in Despair” 4 yrs after Quake – Amnesty,
Thomson Reuters Foundation, pp. 4-6, available at: http://news.trust.org//item/20140113063728_
6lwyr/ (accessed 16 February 2020).
Nazara, S. and Resosudarmo, B.P. (2007), Aceh-Nias Reconstruction and Rehabilitation: Progress and
Challenges at the End of 2006, Asian Development Bank Institute, Tokyo.
Norling, B. (2013), “Effective time management in post-disaster reconstruction”, Australian and New
Zealand Disaster and Emergency Management Conference, pp. 1-10.
Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Pallant, J. (2005), SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using Version 12,
Unpublished PhD Thesis, McGill University, QC.
Pells, D.L. (2007), “Project management for emergency response and disaster recovery – a call to
arms!”, PM World Today Journal, Vol. IX Issue IX, pp. 1-11.
PMI (2013), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), 5th ed., Project
Management Institute, Pennsylvania.
Pryke, S.D. (2004), “Analysing construction project coalition: exploring the application of social
network analysis”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 22, p. 787e797.
Qinghua, H., Weiping, J., Yongkui, L. and Yun, L. (2009), The Study on Paradigm Shift of Project
Management Based on Complexity Science – project Management Innovations in Shanghai 2010
EXPO Construction Program, School of Economic and Management, Tongji University, Shanghai.
Rathnayake, D., Kularatne, D., Abeysinghe, S., Shehara, I., Fonseka, T., Edirisinghe Mudiyanselage, S.,
Kamalrathne, W., Siriwardana, C., Alagiyawanna Mohotti Appuhamilage, C. and Dissanayake, R.
(2020), “Barriers and enablers of coastal disaster resilience – lessons learned from tsunami in Sri
Lanka”, International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, Vol. ahead-of-print
Nos ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/IJDRBE-07-2019-0050.
Rouhanizadeh, B., Kermanshachi, S. and Dhamangaonkar, V.S. (2019), “Identification and
categorization of policy and legal barriers to long-term timely post disaster reconstruction”,
Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, Vol. 11 No. 3,
04519014.
IJMPB Rowley, J. (2014), “Designing and using research questionnaires”, Management Research Review,
Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 308-330.
14,3
Rui, L. (2017), “Research on management model of post-disaster reconstruction based on contingency
Theory-taking the post-disaster reconstruction project in Lushan as an example”, Journal of
Scientific and Engineering Research, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 238-244.
Russell, A., Potangaroa, R. and Feng, V. (2008), “Houses or homes? The patterns of design”,
Proceedings of the 4th International i-Rec Conference, University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
786 (accessed August 2009).
Rwelamila, P.D. and Purushottam, N. (2012), “Project management trilogy challenges in Africa –where
to from here?”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 5-13.
Rwelamila, P.D., Talukhaba, A.D. and Ngowi, A.B. (1999), “Tracing the african project failure
syndrome: the significance of ‘ubuntu’”, Engineering Construction and Architectural
Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 335-346.
Sadiqi Wardak, Z., Coffey, V. and Trigunarsyah, B. (2012), “Rebuilding housing after a disaster:
factors for failure”, in Yamada, F. and Kakimoto, R. (Eds), Proceedings of 8th Annual
International Conference of the International Institute for Infrastructure, Renewal and
Reconstruction (IIIRR), Kumamoto University, Kumamot, pp. 292-300.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2016), Research Methods for Business Students, 7th ed.,
Pearson Education Limited, Harlow.
Sharma, K., KC, A., Subedi, M. and Pokharel, B. (2018), “Post-disaster reconstruction after 2015 gorkha
earthquake: challenges and influencing factors”, Journal of the Institute of Engineering, Vol. 14
No. 1, pp. 52-63.
UNDP (2009), Capacity Development: A UNDP Primer, United Nations Development Programme,
available at: https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/capacity-building/
capacity-development-a-undp-primer.html (accessed 10 February 2020).
Walker, M.F., Hoffmann, T., Brandy, M.C. and Watkins, C.L. (2017), “Improving the development,
monitoring and reporting of stroke rehabilitation research: consensus-based core
recommendations from the stroke recovery and rehabilitation roundtable”, International
Journal of Stroke, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 472-479.
Wardak, Z.S., Coffey, V. and Trigunarsyah, B. (2012), “Rebuilding housing after a disaster: factors for
failure”, 8th Annual International Conference of the International Institute for Infrastructure,
Renewal and Reconstruction (IIIRR), pp. 292-300.
World Bank (2013), Building Resilience: Integrating Climate and Disaster Risk into Development,
Washington DC, available at: www.worldbank.org (accessed 16 October 2019).
Ye, Y. and Okada, N. (2002), “Integrated relief and reconstruction management following A natural
disaster. Second annual IIASA-DPRI meeting”, Integrated Disaster Risk Management: Megacity
Vulnerability and Resilience, 29–31 July 2002, IIASA, Laxenburg, pp. 1-18.
Yi, H. and Yang, J. (2014), “Research trends of post disaster reconstruction: the past and the future”,
Habitat International, Vol. 42, pp. 21-29.
Zuo, K., Potangaroa, R., Wilkinson, S. and Rotimi, J.O. (2009), “A project management prospective in
achieving a sustainable supply chain for timber procurement in Banda Aceh, Indonesia”,
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 2, pp. 386-400.

Further reading
Bryman, A. (2012), Social Research Methods, 5th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxforrd.
Creswell, J.W. (2013), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches,
2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Creswell, J.W. and Creswell, D. (2018), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches, 5th ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
KPMG (2013), “Invest Africa Challenges facing infrastructure development”, available at: http://www. Post-disaster
kpmg.com/africa/en/issuesandinsights/articles-publications/press-releases/pages/invest-africa.
aspx (accessed September 2019). reconstruction
Manning, R.S. (2011), From Vision to Implementation: Enhancing the Recovery Process through
projects in
Integrated Knowledge, Planning, and Project Management, Institute for Emergency Angola
Preparedness Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, AL 36265.
Pelling, M. (2001), “Natural disasters?”, in Castree, N. and Braun, B. (Eds), Social Nature: Theory,
Practice, and Politics, Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA, pp. 170-188. 787
Pinto, J.K. and Kharbanda, O.P. (1995), “Lessons for an accidental profession”, Bus Horizons, Vol. 38
No. 2, pp. 41-51.
Silva, J.D. (2010), Lessons from Aceh: Key Considerations in Post-disaster Reconstruction,
Practical Action Publishing, Rugby, available at: http://www.dec.org.uk/ (accessed 5
June 2019).
Steinfort, P. and Walker, D.H.T.T. (2007), “Critical success factors in project management globally
and how they may be applied to aid projects”, Proceedings of the PMOZ Achieving Excellence
– 4th Annual Project Management Australia Conference, 28–31 August 2007, Brisbane,
pp. 28-31.
UNDP (2007), Participatory Reconstruction Process at Work: Re-building Homes in Aceh and Nias,
UN-habitat and UNDP Joint Programme in Aceh, UN Habitat, Banda Aceh, available at:
http://www.unisdr.org/files/596_10307.pdf (accessed 25 February 2020).
Yin, R.K. (2014), Case Study Research Design and Methods, 5th ed., Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.

Corresponding author
Nyamagere Gladys Sospeter can be contacted at: nyamagere@yahoo.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com