The project planning myth in international development

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to improve understanding and practice of project management by assessing whether two of its core myths also prevail in international development (ID): first, that project managers (PMs) plan fully for project success, including implementation success and end‐user satisfaction; and second, that they can focus on “getting things done”, free of concern for strategic issues.Design/methodology/approachThe analysis of a high‐profile World Bank project and of the policies and rules under which their PMs operate serves as a means to carry out the research. The authors uncover certain “facts” that challenge the myths that prevail in standard project management. Furthermore, they examine how these facts and the corollaries they produce guide the behaviours of PMs differently in the ID field.FindingsIn the ID field, and contrary to the standard practice in project management, it is found that: PMs are not involved in overall planning, and are limited to implementation planning, because they lack the necessary latitude. Hence, they practice project implementation as the art of avoiding making mistakes as they juggle donor procedures and guidelines. Second, PMs are well informed about the overall strategy of their project, which is articulated by the donors and the beneficiary country, but they are limited in their ability to contribute directly to its success. Thus, they may fail to deliver the intended development strategy even if they “get things done”.Research limitations/implicationsThis paper argues that these two core PM tenets are convenient myths at best, given the asymmetrical distribution of power, the strong front‐end activity, and the procedures orientation of international development projects.Practical implicationsThis paper addresses questions regarding the nature and the content of the work of PMs in the context of ID. In contrast to other sectors, projects are found to be linked more clearly to the higher strategic issues, and yet PMs are less empowered to contribute to them. Thus, all stakeholders may have to revise their expectations regarding what PMs can realistically do in ID. These findings are relevant to scholars and practitioners alike.Originality/valueThe value of this paper lies in examining the basic question of “what PMs do”. Although ID has been project‐oriented since the 1950s, this question has not received much attention in standard PM literature. In assessing “what PMs do”, the paper also brings into question “what project management is”.

Special Issue: Why Do Projects Fail in Africa?

“…Other projects have had mixed results. For example, the Chad-Cameroon 1,000-km pipeline project was a success in terms of the project management process (time, cost, quality) but a failure in terms of development impact (Ika & Saint-Macary, 2012). Thus, project performance is not all doom or gloom in Africa.…”

“As planning is everything, it is good for something!” A Coasian economic taxonomy of modes of planning

“…Alexander (1981) discounted the value of “rational control” of the future and advanced Henry Hightower’s view that “planning as a process of … human thought” was based on “aforethought” (p. 135) as a better characterization of planning, as that would shift the focus away from the tricky question of “how to make decisions more ‘rational’,” but also “how to improve the quality of an action” (p. 136). This view is exactly the famous dictum of Eisenhower’s “plans are nothing, planning is everything” (Ika and Saint-Macary, 2012: 423). On the other hand, Meadowcroft (1997) found that Wildavsky indeed sought to shift the focus of discussion to the planning “process,” which is not any specific national planning process, but one of “conventional governmental planning” (p. 433).…”

Critical Strategies to Influence Project Success in Construction Industry

“…Project manager's duty are to satisfy the task needs, team needs, and individual needs. In addition, he is a link between the strategy and the team [13].…”