PM Journal0803 Criterias for International Development Pojects

72 March 2008 � Project Management Journal � DOI: 10.1002/pmj

PA

PE

RS

INTRODUCTION �

Not-for-profit development projects, especially those financed withinternational development aid, play a vital role in the socioeco-nomic development process of developing countries. According tothe United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP’s) Human

Development Report (2004), the 49 least developed countries in the worldreceived US $55.15 billion in Official Development Assistance (ODA) in 2004;that is 8.9% of their total GDP.

The success of these projects determines the socioeconomic progress inthe recipient countries but also the effectiveness of the contribution of thedonor countries and agencies. Understanding the critical factors that influ-ence project success enhances the ability of donors and implementing agen-cies to ensure desired outcomes. In addition, it helps them forecast the futurestatus of the project, diagnose the problem areas, and prioritize their atten-tion and scarce resources to ensure successful completion of the projects.

Critical success factors for business or profit-oriented projects such asconstruction projects, information technology projects, defense projects,and so on have received significant research interest in the last two decadesbased on the pioneering research by Pinto and Slevin (1987, 1989). However,little of this research pays adequate attention to international developmentprojects that possess significant differentiating characteristics, especially thesocial and not-for-profit nature of the projects, the complex relationships ofthe stakeholders involved, and the intangibility of the developmental results.At the same time, the factors identified in the literature reviewed were mostlyfocused on either success of the project implementation or the overall successof the project and failed to explicitly list the factors relevant for the differentlife-cycle phases of the project. As a result, they cannot be used to progressivelymeasure the project performance early in the project life to timely diagnoseproject problems.

The paper aims to contribute to the general project management body ofknowledge by addressing the international development projects that takeplace in the developing countries. The majority of funding for these projectsis from the Official Development Assistance provided by the OEDC membercountries through multilateral or bilateral aid agencies and usually takes theform of concessionaire loans, grants, or technical assistance implementedthrough the governments of the recipient countries. Other sources of fundingcome from private philanthropic and nongovernment organizations (NGOs).In this study, the authors take a new life-cycle-based approach in developinga conceptual model to assess and forecast project success that takes intoaccount both the frameworks developed earlier for general projects and the specific characteristics and context of the international development

Success Criteria and Factors forInternational Development Projects: A Life-Cycle-Based FrameworkDo Ba Khang, Asian Institute of Technology, ThailandTun Lin Moe, Pennsylvania State University, Harrisburg, PA, USA

ABSTRACT �

The paper presents a new conceptual model fornot-for-profit international development proj-ects that identifies different sets of success cri-teria and factors in the project life-cycle phasesand then provides the dynamic linkages amongthese criteria and factors. The model can serveas a basis to evaluate the project status and toforecast the results progressively throughoutthe stages. Thus, it helps the project manage-ment team and the key stakeholders prioritizetheir attention and scarce development resour-ces to ensure successful project completion.Empirical data from a field survey conducted inselected Southeast Asian countries confirm themodel’s validity and also illustrate importantmanagerial implications.

KEYWORDS: project success criteria; criti-cal success factors; international develop-ment projects; project life cycle

Project Management Journal, Vol. 39, No. 1, 72–84

© 2008 by the Project Management Institute

Published online in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com)

DOI: 10.1002/pmj.20034

March 2008 � Project Management Journal � DOI: 10.1002/pmj 73

projects. For this purpose, first the proj-ect management literature on successfactors and criteria is reviewed andthen the key characteristics that differ-entiate the international developmentprojects from others are described. Ananalysis of these characteristics leads toa dynamic model that identifies differ-ent success criteria and factors for thedifferent phases of the project life cycle,and then links the success criteria ofeach phase with that of the subsequentphase.

The framework is tested empiricallywith a survey conducted with bothODA and international NGO projects inselected countries in Southeast Asia.Analysis of the data collected confirmsthe validity of the framework and alsocontributes new insights into managingthese projects. The proposed frame-work provides the project stakeholderswith a forecasting and diagnostic tool toevaluate progressively and objectivelythe project chance of success, andtherefore to assist in improving theoverall performance.

Project Success Criteria andFactors: A Literature ReviewDefining criteria to measure projectsuccess has been recognized as a diffi-cult and controversial task (Baccarini,1999; Liu & Walker, 1998). Pinto andMantel (1990) attempted to define theproject success according to three dif-ferent dimensions:• The efficiency of the implementation

process that is “an internally orientedmeasure of the performance of theproject team, including such criteriaas staying on schedule, on budget,meeting the technical goals of theproject, and maintaining smoothworking relationship within the teamand parent organization.”

• The perceived quality of the project,which includes the project team’sperception of the value and useful-ness of the project deliverables.

• The client’s satisfaction or an externalperformance measure of the projectperformance and its team.

Following this line of research,Andersen and Jessen (2000) emphasizedthe need for separating the task- andpeople-oriented aspects in evaluat-ing the project results. They furtherdivided the results into 10 elementsto give a more comprehensive pictureof the outcomes of a project. Thesedimensions include the traditionaltime, budget, and quality elements butalso the usefulness of the products tothe base organization, the appeal of theresults to all stakeholders, the learningexperience, the motivation for futurework, knowledge acquisition, the waythe final report is prepared and accepted,and how the project is closed (Andersen& Jessen, 2000).

Other authors (Baccarini, 1999;Cooke-Davies, 2002) have adopted theLogical Framework Methodology andobserved the need to differentiate twodifferent concepts of success for aproject:• Project management success is con-

cerned with the traditional time, cost,and quality aspects at the comple-tion of the project. The concept isprocess oriented and involves the sat-isfaction of the users and key stake-holders at the project completion.

• Project success is measured againstthe achievement of the project owner’sstrategic organizational objectivesand goals, as well as the satisfactionof the users and key stakeholders’needs where they relate to the pro-ject’s final product (Baccarini, 1999).

Diallo and Thuillier (2004) was thefirst important empirical research that isfocused on the specific success criteriaand factors of international develop-ment projects. These authors assessedthe project success as perceived byseven groups of stakeholders: coordi-nators, task managers, supervisors,project team, steering committee, ben-eficiaries, and population at large. Theyalso outlined a comprehensive set ofevaluation criteria that includes satis-faction of beneficiaries with goods andservices generated, conformation of

the goods and services produced to theproject documents, achievement of proj-ect objectives, completion of the projectin time and within budget, receivinga high national profile, and receiving agood reputation among the principaldonors.

Compared with the studies on proj-ect success criteria, a considerably larger body of knowledge has beenaccumulated on the generic and criticalfactors responsible for the project suc-cess or failure. Good reviews of theresearch conducted over the last fourdecades can be found in Pinto andSlevin (1987), Belassi and Tukel (1996),Westerveld (2003), Diallo and Thuillier(2004, 2005), and Fortune and White(2006). From the perspectives relevantto managing international developmentprojects, the most prominent studies ofthe period suggest that these factors areclosely interrelated, and at times over-lapping, and can be grouped in threemajor categories: competency, motiva-tion, and the enabling environment.

The competencies required forthe project success can be related to theproject manager and the team mem-bers, or the institutional competenciesof the project team itself. The criticalindividual competencies—technical,interpersonal, and administrative—have been explicitly identified by mostof the authors reviewed. For example,Martin (1974), Locke (1984), and Pintoand Slevin (1987) emphasized the needfor carefully recruiting the right manag-er and personnel to ensure project suc-cess, while Cleland and King (1983)highlighted the role of effective trainingto build the capacities required. Whiteand Fortune (2002) added the relevantproject experiences to these competen-cies. The institutional competenciesare commonly recognized as effectivecontrol and communication systems,good planning and scheduling, abs-ence of bureaucracy, strong teamworkand leadership, lack of dysfunctionalconflicts, etc. (Pinto & Slevin, 1989;White & Fortune, 2002; Westerveld,2003).


Success Criteria and Factors for International Development Projects

74 March 2008 � Project Management Journal � DOI: 10.1002/pmj 74 March 2008 � Project Management Journal � DOI: 10.1002/pmj

Without the willingness to performand dedication to the project successby the manager and the team mem-bers, competencies are useless. Moti-vation factors recognized in the litera-ture include clear understanding of theproject goals, objectives, and mission(Anderson & Jessen, 2000; Belassi &Tukel, 1996; Martin, 1974; White& Fortune, 2002). This understandingshould be supplemented by the com-mitments to the project success by allthe project team. Cooke-Davies (2002)emphasizes the clear assignment ofresponsibilities as a way of accomplish-ing this commitment. Andersen andJessen (2000) refer to clear terms of ref-erences for the project. Many studies(for example, Sayles & Chandler, 1971,White & Fortune, 2002) recommend aneffective monitoring and controlsystem to reinforce the motivation ofthe project team. These factors, and thecompatibility of the interests of theindividuals with those of the project,are even more important for interna-tional development projects, where therelationships of the project team andthe other stakeholders are much morecomplex (Kwak, 2002; Youker, 1999).Communication and trust factors arefound empirically by Diallo andThuillier (2005) as critical to the successof international development projectsin sub-Saharan Africa.

A project environment mostlyrefers to the relationship to externalconditions and stakeholders, such asfunding agencies, implementing agen-cies, agencies of recipient governmentsand target beneficiaries. An enablingenvironment provides adequate sup-port from key stakeholders, adequateresources, and creates favorable condi-tions with support from managementand compatible rules and regulations.Early research identified top manage-ment support and adequate allocationof resources as key environmental fac-tors (Cleland & King, 1983; Martin,1974; Pinto & Slevin, 1987). Belassi andTukel (1996) described explicitly thefactors related to external environment,

such as political, economical and socialsituations, technical conditions andcompetitors. Other external factorsincluded adequate resources, facility,finance and information (Baker,Murphy, & Fisher, 1983; Pinto & Slevin,1987; Sayles & Chandler, 1971; White &Fortune, 2002; Westerveld, 2003).

As pointed out by Pinto and Slevin(1987), the critical success factors varyaccording to different types of projects.Thus, the results obtained for industrialand business projects, or even for gen-eral projects, may not always be appli-cable to not-for-profit projects that canbe very different from those found inindustry or the private sector. However,except for the seminal studies of Dialloand Thuillier (2004, 2005), none of theresearches on project critical successfactors addressed this important groupof projects. (See Fortune and White[2006].) The current research follows upthe studies by Diallo and Thuillier(2004, 2005) of international develop-ment projects by taking into considera-tion specific critical success factors andcriteria for each of the life-cycle phasesof these projects.

Characteristics of InternationalDevelopment ProjectsDevelopment projects form a specialtype of projects that provide socio-economic assistance to the developingcountries, or to some specially desig-nated group of target beneficiaries.These projects differ from industrial orcommercial projects in several impor-tant ways, the understanding of whichhas strong impacts on how the projectscan be managed and evaluated.

The objectives of developmentprojects, by definition, concern povertyalleviation and living standards improve-ment, environment protection, basichuman rights protection, assistance forvictims of natural or people-causeddisasters, capacity building and devel-opment of basic physical and socialinfrastructures. These humanitarian andsocial objectives are usually much lesstangible, with deliverables less visible

and measurable, compared with infra-structure and industrial projects com-monly found in the private sector. Evenfor projects involving development ofphysical infrastructure and facilities,the ultimate “soft” goals of serving sus-tainable social and economic develop-ment always have a priority in the proj-ect evaluation by key stakeholders. Theintangibility of project objectives anddeliverables raises a special challengein managing and evaluating develop-ment projects that require adaptationof the existing project managementbody of knowledge and adopting newtools and concepts to define, monitorand measure the extent that the devel-opment projects achieve these objec-tives. Neglecting this important aspectof development projects usually leadsto the tendency of measuring onlyresource mobilization and efforts,rather than results. The consequence isthe inefficient use of developmentfunds and long-term lack of accounta-bility. As project interventions cannotbe continued forever, most projectsalso have an ultimate goal to producepositive and significant changes thatwill be sustained after the externalassistance comes to an end. This sus-tainability requirement adds a newlevel to the intangibility of the develop-ment outcomes.

Another characteristic of most inter-national development projects is thecomplex web of the many stakeholdersinvolved (Youker, 1999). Industrial andcommercial projects usually have twokey stakeholders—the client, who paysfor the project, and as a result, getsthe benefits from its deliverables,and the contractor, or implementingunit, who gets paid for managing theproject to achieve the desired results.International development projects, incontrast, commonly involve three sep-arate key stakeholders, namely thefunding agency who pays for but doesnot use directly the project outputs, theimplementing unit, and the target ben-eficiaries who actually benefit from theproject outputs but most commonly do

PA

PE

RS


not pay for the projects. The role sepa-ration of these three key stakeholdershas several important implications.First, financial accountability by theproject management team is oftenconsidered as important as its responsi-bility to complete the projects withinthe time, cost and quality. This is evenmore important since these projectsare implemented in developing coun-tries where cases of high-level corrup-tion often take place. Second, becauseof the common developmental, cultur-al and knowledge gap between donorsand the target recipients, the likely mis-match between the real needs andcapacity of the target groups and theunderstanding and development poli-cies of the funding agencies may resultin poor project design, a precursor offailure in the implementation. Third,complicating the requirements forfinancial accountability are the effortsby the funding agencies and the gov-ernments of the recipient countries toestablish rules and procedures to regu-late the disbursement and utilization ofthe development funds. Set with simi-lar intention, but by different institu-tions with different organizationalcultures and traditions, these variousrules and procedures often contradicteach other, raising special and unnec-essary difficulties during project imple-mentation.

The lack of market pressures inappraising and implementing develop-ment projects, combined with theintangibility of their objectives, oftenmakes these projects the target of polit-ical manipulations. Individual politi-cians and political parties may push forinfeasible projects, or may opposegood projects for their own politicalgains. In extreme cases, some donorcountries may use development fund-ing to nurture a political alliance withthe leaders of the recipient countries,or simply to buy a good conscience(Pallage & Robe, 1998). As a conse-quence, the real interests of differentstakeholders in these projects may bedifferent from the stated objectives in

the project document, creating a spe-cial dilemma for the implementation.

The challenges faced by interna-tional development projects convinceus of the need to refine the existingevaluation frameworks used in indus-try to allow the managers and stake-holders of these projects to assess theproject performance in a more objec-tive and consistent manner. This maybe achieved by considering project lifecycle, and then evaluating the successof each phase based on the outputsproduced by the activities of thephase. These partial successes canthen be integrated into an assessmentof the overall success of the wholeproject.

The life cycle of most projects canbe broken into sequential phases thatare generally differentiated by the tech-nical work being carried out, the keyactors involved, the deliverables to begenerated and the ways these are con-trolled and approved (Project Manage-ment Institute [PMI], 2004). Althoughthe number and names of the life-cyclephases and the precise boundarypoints may vary largely from one proj-ect to another, international develop-ment projects go through a typical lifecycle including four relatively distinctstages. Table 1 summarizes the mostcommon scope of the work to be car-ried out, the end products to be deliv-ered and the parties involved in thesefour life-cycle phases.

The Proposed Life-Cycle-BasedFrameworkMeasuring the success of internationaldevelopment projects commonlyinvolves a high degree of subjectivejudgments, due to the intangibility oftheir objectives. In this research, moreobjective success criteria are developedby adopting the Logical FrameworkApproach (LFA), a general methodolo-gy commonly used by the developmentcommunity to design, plan, manageand communicate their projects(Coleman, 1987; Gasper, 2000; Wiggins& Shields, 1995). The LFA deconstructs

a development project into a hierarchyof five components: inputs, activities,and three levels of the project results—outputs (or deliverables), objectives (or purposes, or outcomes) and goals (orimpacts). Following Baccarini’s ap-proach (1999), the success of a projectis defined at two levels: the project ma-nagement success, and the project success.

Project management success, beingprocess oriented, should be assessed bythe input, activity and output elementsof the LFA, and can be progressivelyevaluated in the different stages of theproject. It can be broken down into suc-cess of project life-cycle phases, andthen measured by evaluating the qualityof the end products generated and theachievement of the results intended foreach of these phases. For example, theconceptualizing phase of an interna-tional development project should gen-erally be considered as successful if inthis early stage the following conditionsexist:• Correct target beneficiaries have been

identified and their relevant needshave been assessed to match thedevelopment priorities of the donors;

• An appropriate implementing agencyhas been identified and notified thatis capable and willing to carry out theproposed project;

• Initial awareness and support of allkey parties concerned have been ade-quately raised in order to ensure theproject proposal enters the next plan-ning phase.

The success of the last phase, basedon the smooth closing of the projectoffice and all due transactions, andacceptance of the end deliverables andthe project final reports by the keystakeholders, is the culmination of thesuccess of all the previous phases andconstitutes the overall project manage-ment success.

Project success, on the other hand,reflects the effective use of the project’sfinal products and the sustainableachievement of the project purpose


Success Criteria and Factors for International Development ProjectsP

AP

ER

S


PA

PE

RS

Tabl

e 1:

Life

-cyc

le p

hase

s of

inte

rnat

iona

l dev

elop

men

t pro

ject

s.

Life

-Cyc

le P

hase

sKe

y Ac

tiviti

esKe

y Pl

ayer

sEn

d Pr

oduc

ts

•Fu

ndin

g ag

enci

es (o

r the

ir re

pres

enta

tive)

•Co

nsul

tant

s

•Im

plem

entin

g ag

enci

es

•Re

pres

enta

tives

of t

arge

t ben

efic

iarie

s an

dlo

cal g

over

nmen

ts

•Fu

ndin

g ag

ency

(rep

rese

ntat

ive)

•Go

vern

men

t (re

pres

enta

tive)

•Co

nsul

tant

s

•Im

plem

entin

g ag

enci

es

•Pr

ojec

t man

agem

ent t

eam

•Su

bcon

trac

tors

, sup

plie

rs, p

artn

ers

•Ta

rget

ben

efic

iarie

s

•Pr

ojec

t man

agem

ent t

eam

•Fu

ndin

g ag

ency

(rep

rese

ntat

ive)

•Go

vern

men

t (re

pres

enta

tive)

•Im

plem

entin

g ag

enci

es

•Id

entif

y th

e po

tent

ial t

arge

t ben

efic

iarie

s an

d as

sess

thei

r dev

elop

men

t nee

ds.

•Al

ign

the

deve

lopm

ent p

riorit

ies

of d

onor

s, th

e ca

paci

ties

of p

oten

tial i

mpl

emen

ting

agen

cies

, and

the

deve

lopm

ent

need

s.

•De

velo

p an

d ev

alua

te p

roje

ct a

ltern

ativ

es.

•Ge

nera

te in

tere

st a

nd s

uppo

rt o

f key

sta

keho

lder

s.

•De

velo

p th

e pr

ojec

t sco

pe a

nd L

OGFR

AME.

•Es

timat

e re

sour

ces

requ

ired.

•M

obili

ze s

uppo

rt a

nd c

omm

itmen

t.

•Pl

an fo

r pro

ject

sch

edul

e an

d or

gani

zatio

n se

tup.

•Ne

gotia

te fo

r fin

al a

ppro

val.

•Se

t up

proj

ect m

anag

emen

t tea

m.

•Re

view

and

revi

se p

roje

ct p

lan

and

kick

off

the

proj

ect.

•Ca

rry

out t

he p

roje

ct a

ctiv

ities

as

plan

ned.

•Co

ntro

l the

pro

ject

bud

get a

nd e

xpen

ses.

•M

onito

r, ev

alua

te, a

nd re

port

pro

ject

pro

gres

s an

d pe

r-fo

rman

ce.

•M

anag

e re

latio

nshi

ps w

ith s

take

hold

ers.

•Fi

nal t

est t

he p

roje

ct o

utpu

ts.

•Co

mpl

ete

the

proj

ect f

inal

repo

rt.

•Se

ttle

all

finan

cial

tran

sact

ions

with

sub

cont

ract

ors,

sup

-pl

iers

, con

sulta

nts,

etc

.

•Ha

nd o

ver t

he p

roje

ct o

utpu

t and

ass

et.

•Br

ing

into

pub

lic n

otic

e th

e pr

ojec

t res

ults

and

less

ons.

•Di

ssol

ve o

r tra

nsfo

rm th

e pr

ojec

t tea

m.

Conc

eptu

aliz

ing

Plan

ning

Impl

emen

ting

Clos

ing/

com

plet

ing

•Ne

eds

asse

ssm

ent r

epor

t

•Pr

ojec

t pro

posa

l or

conc

ept p

aper

•Pr

ojec

t doc

umen

ts in

clud

ing

•Pr

ojec

t sco

pe a

nd L

OGFR

AME

•Bu

dget

•Or

gani

zatio

nal s

etup

•Sc

hedu

le•

Risk

man

agem

ent p

lan

•Pr

ojec

t agr

eem

ent w

ith re

sour

cean

d su

ppor

t com

mitm

ent

•Re

sour

ces

mob

ilize

d

•Ac

tiviti

es c

arrie

d ou

t

•Ou

tput

s pr

oduc

ed a

nd d

eliv

ered

•In

cept

ion

repo

rt a

nd M

&E

repo

rts

•Pr

ojec

t com

plet

ion

repo

rt

•Fi

nal s

ettle

men

t of a

ll pe

ndin

gfin

anci

al d

ues

•Pr

ojec

t out

puts

and

ass

ets

tran

s-fe

rred

•Di

ssol

utio

n or

tran

sfor

mat

ion

ofth

e pr

ojec

t tea

m in

to a

n on

goin

gop

erat

ion


and long-term goals. It should be eval-uated at the end of the project by a different set of criteria that are basedessentially on the development impacts,the sustainability and the acceptanceof the project achievements by thestakeholders and the development com-munity in general.

As indicated by the researchreviewed, the conditions required toensure the project management suc-cess in each life-cycle phase involvesthe competencies and commitmentof the concerned parties in carrying outthe scope of the work of the phase, andother external enabling environmentalconditions for the conduct of theseactivities. As these conditions couldbe extensive, the authors focus on themost common factors, based on theirown experiences and field interviewswith the project stakeholders. In addi-tion, since the end products of oneproject life-cycle phase serve as inputsfor the subsequent one, the successin each phase provides favorable pre-conditions for the implementation ofthe remaining part of the project. Thesuccess criteria for one phase are con-ceptualized as part of the success factorsfor the subsequent phase.

Table 2 summarizes these criteriaand factors for the life-cycle phases ofinternational development projects.Figure 1 provides a comprehensive rep-resentation of our proposed frameworkthat incorporates the identified criteriaand factors for both project manage-ment success and project success into adynamic structure linking the life-cyclephases of the international develop-ment projects.

Empirical ValidationSurvey DesignIn order to validate the model, a surveywas conducted with internal andexternal stakeholders of both OfficialDevelopment Assistance (ODA) projectsand international non-governmentalorganizations (INGO) in Vietnam andMyanmar. The choice of these two

countries was based on the authors’access to the international develop-ment projects in these countries butcan also be justified by the total volumeof assistance aid involved (US $1,894.6million in 2004, or 29.53% of total ODAdisbursed for the 11 countries in South-East Asia), with Vietnam being thelargest recipient of ODA in South-EastAsia (US $1,768.8 million in 2004) andMyanmar, one of the smallest. A 53-item questionnaire was used where therespondents were asked to evaluate thesuccess of their project using differentapproaches, and then assess the criticalsuccess factors both on their perceivedimportance and on the extent of theirpresence in the project.

The overall success of the projectsis first evaluated using the perceivedjudgment by the various key stake-holders, such as manager and teammembers, funding and implementingagencies, target beneficiaries and gen-eral public (questions Q6–Q12). After-ward, the respondents also evaluate theoverall success of their project based onmore specific criteria identified in themodel, such as visible impact on targetbeneficiaries, built capacity, reputa-tion, sustainability of project results,and chance of being extended as resultof success (questions Q30–Q34). Thesetwo sets of criteria correspond tothe two dimensions of project success:the perceived satisfaction by key stake-holders, and the quality of overallintended results. The respondents arealso asked to evaluate the partial proj-ect management success of each life-cycle phase the project has gonethrough. The criteria used include thequality of the outputs produced bythe phases as well as the acceptance ofthese outputs by the key stakeholders(questions Q13–Q28). The traditionalcriteria of targets, time and costs areincluded in the success assessment inthe implementing phase, which is con-sistent with the common approach inthe literature (Belassi & Tukel, 1996;Diallo & Thuillier, 2004; Pinto & Slevin,1987).

For each phase of the project, therespondents are asked to rate theirperception of the importance of thesuccess factors listed for the phase(questions QI35–QI53). For the samefactors, the respondents are also askedto assess the extent these factors are–orhave been–actually present in theirproject (questions Q35–Q53). By regress-ing the project success measures to thescores provided for these later ques-tions, the actual impacts of these fac-tors on the success of the phases as wellas the overall success can be evaluated.1

Thus, both the subjective judgmentand a more objective assessment of therelative importance of the factors onthe project success are obtained andcompared.

Over 1,000 questionnaires were dis-tributed to the project managers andstaff members, officials at donor agen-cies, government agencies and INGOsin visits to their offices, and in work-shops attended by them. Of the 374returned questionnaires, after discard-ing responses with missing data, 368were usable. A preliminary analysis ofthe data collected reveals a broad andrelatively balanced representation ofthe different sectors and types of stake-holders in the sample: In Vietnam (296responses) the respondents comemostly from agriculture, environmen-tal, energy, social development, andcapacity building-reform-governancecategories, while the respondents inMyanmar (72 responses) represent theINGO’s working with social development,

1Although one may argue that statistical analysis of Likert

scale data is not rigorously tractable with classical multiple

regression (see, for example, Diallo & Thuillier, 2004, 2005),

this study follows the common “pragmatist” approach in

business research of treating Likert scale data as interval or

“quasi-interval” measurements (Cooper & Schindler, 2001,

p. 234; Hofstede, 2001, p. 50; Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991,

p. 28). Regression analysis was also commonly used in crit-

ical success factor research (for example, Andersen and

Jessen, 2000; Pinto & Slevin, 1989). In this study, to cross-

check the results of regression analysis, multinomial regres-

sion analysis was performed on the same data following the

approach taken by Diallo and Thuillier (2004, 2005), with

essentially consistent results. We report here the classical

regression results that are straightforward and easier to

interpret.



AP

ER

S


health-nutrition-population, and capac-ity building-reform-governance proj-ects. In terms of responsibility, 28% ofthe respondents are project managers,coordinators or directors; 47% are proj-ect team members; and the remainderare representing external stakeholders(donors, local authorities and targetbeneficiaries). Reliability analysis forthe questionnaire yields high Cronbach’s

alpha values, ranging from 0.89 to 0.95for the items covering overall success,partial success, and the success factors’presence and importance.

Analysis of FindingsOverall, the respondents have a verypositive judgment of the success oftheir projects (with average score above4.0 over a scale of 5; see Table 3). They

are also confident that other key stake-holders assess their projects as equallysuccessful. This general optimisticassessment of success reflects theimpact of social desirability of develop-ment projects over perceptions of theirsuccess. The only exception here is thejudgment of how the general publicperceives the projects (average score of3.83, significantly lower than the others).

Table 2: Success criteria and factors for international development projects.

Life-Cycle Phases Success Criteria Critical Success Factors

Conceptualizing

Planning

Implementing

Closing/Completing

Overall Project Success

• Addressing relevant needs of the right target group of beneficiaries

• Identifying the right implementing agency capable and willing to deliver

• Matching policy priorities and raising the interests of keystakeholders

• Approval of, and commitment to, the project by the key parties

• Sufficient resources committed and ready to be disbursed

• Core organizational capacity established for PM

• Resources mobilized and used as planned

• Activities carried out as scheduled

• Outputs produced meet the planned specifications and quality

• Good accountability of resources utilization

• Key stakeholders informed of and satisfied with projectprogress

• Project assets transferred, financial settlements completed,and team dissolved to the satisfaction of key stakeholders.

• Project end outputs are accepted and used by target benefi-ciaries.

• Project completion report accepted by the key stakeholders.

• Project has a visible impact on the beneficiaries.

• Project has built institutional capacity within the country.

• Project has good reputation.

• Project has good chance of being extended as result of success.

• Project’s outcomes are likely to be sustained.

• Clear understanding of project environment by funding and implement-ing agencies and consultants

• Competencies of project designers

• Effective consultations with primary stakeholders

• Compatibility of development priorities ofthe key stakeholders

• Adequate resources and competenciesavailable to support the project plan

• Competencies of project planners

• Effective consultation with key stakeholders

• Compatible rules and procedures for PM

• Continuing supports of stakeholders

• Commitment to project goals and objectives

• Competencies of project managementteam

• Effective consultation with all stakeholders

• Adequate provisions for project closing inthe project plan

• Competencies of project manager

• Effective consultation with key stakeholders

• Donors and recipient government haveclear policies to sustain project’s activitiesand results.

• Adequate local capacities are available.

• There is strong local ownership of the project.


I. C

onc

eptu

aliz

ing

SCCSF

s

o N

eed

ass

essm

ent

rep

ort

o Pr

ojec

t co

ncep

t p

aper

o C

lear

und

erst

and

ing

of

p

roje

ct e

nviro

nmen

to

Com

pet

enci

es o

f pro

ject

d

esig

ners

o Ef

fect

ive

cons

ulta

tion

with

prim

ary

stak

ehol

der

s

o A

dd

ress

ing

rel

evan

t

nee

ds

of t

he r

ight

tar

get

g

roup

of b

enef

icia

ries

o Id

entif

ying

the

rig

ht

imp

lem

entin

g a

gen

cy

ca

pab

le a

nd w

illin

g t

o

del

iver

o M

atch

ing

pol

icy

prio

ritie

s an

d r

aisi

ng t

he

in

tere

sts

of k

ey

sta

keho

lder

s

II. P

lann

ing

SCCSF

s

o F

inal

pro

ject

doc

umen

tso

Pro

ject

ag

reem

ent

o C

omp

atib

ility

of

dev

elop

men

t p

riorit

ies

of

the

key

sta

keho

lder

so

Ad

equa

te r

esou

rces

and

c

omp

eten

cies

ava

ilab

le t

o

sup

por

t th

e p

roje

ct p

lan

o C

omp

eten

cies

of p

roje

ct

pla

nner

so

Effe

ctiv

e co

nsul

tatio

n w

ith

key

sta

keho

lder

s

o A

pp

rova

l of,

and

c

omm

itmen

t to

, the

pro

ject

b

y th

e ke

y p

artie

so

Suf

ficie

nt r

esou

rces

c

omm

itted

and

read

y to

be

d

isb

urse

do

Cor

e or

gan

izat

iona

l cap

acity

e

stab

lishe

d fo

r PM

III.

Imp

lem

enti

ng

SCCSF

s

o R

esou

rces

mob

ilize

do

Act

iviti

es c

arrie

d o

uto

Out

put

s p

rod

uced

o S

hort

ter

m w

ork

pla

ns a

nd

M&

E re

por

ts

o C

omp

atib

le r

ules

and

p

roce

dur

es fo

r PM

o C

onsi

sten

t su

pp

orts

of

s

take

hold

ers

o C

omm

itmen

t to

pro

ject

g

oals

and

ob

ject

ives

o C

omp

eten

cies

of p

roje

ct

m

anag

emen

t te

amo

Effe

ctiv

e co

nsul

tatio

n

o R

esou

rces

mob

ilize

d a

nd

use

d a

s p

lann

edo

Act

iviti

es c

arrie

d o

ut a

s

sch

edul

edo

Out

put

s p

rod

uced

mee

t th

e

pla

nned

sp

ecifi

catio

ns a

nd

qua

lity

o G

ood

acc

ount

abili

ty o

f

re

sour

ces

utili

zatio

no

Key

sta

keho

lder

s in

form

ed

of a

nd s

atis

fied

with

p

roje

ct p

rog

ress

IV. C

losi

ng/C

om

ple

ting

SCCSF

s

o F

inan

cial

set

tlem

ents

o P

roje

ct c

omp

letio

n re

por

to

Out

put

s an

d p

roje

ct a

sset

s

tra

nsfe

rred

o P

roje

ct t

eam

dis

solv

ed

o A

deq

uate

pro

visi

ons

for

p

roje

ct c

losi

ngo

Com

pet

enci

es o

f pro

ject

m

anag

ero

Effe

ctiv

e co

nsul

tatio

n w

ith

key

sta

keho

lder

s

o P

roje

ct a

sset

s tr

ansf

erre

d,

finan

cial

set

tlem

ents

com

ple

ted

, and

tea

m

dis

solv

ed t

o th

e sa

tisfa

ctio

n

of k

ey s

take

hold

ers

o P

roje

ct e

nd o

utp

uts

are

a

ccep

ted

and

use

d b

y

tar

get

ben

efic

iarie

so

Pro

ject

com

ple

tion

rep

ort

a

ccep

ted

by

the

key

s

take

hold

ers

Ove

rall

Pro

ject

Suc

cess

Pro

ject

Man

agem

ent

Succ

ess

SC

o P

roje

ct is

sus

tain

ed b

y lo

cal

inst

itutio

nal c

apac

ityo

Pro

ject

’s im

pac

ts o

n

ben

efic

iarie

s ar

e vi

sib

leo

Pro

ject

has

goo

d r

eput

atio

n

in d

onor

’s c

omm

unity

o P

roje

ct is

rec

ogni

zed

to

have

mea

ning

ful a

nd

si

gni

fican

t co

ntrib

utio

ns t

o

the

dev

elop

men

t of

the

c

ount

ryo

Pro

ject

is e

xten

ded

into

a

noth

er p

hase

Pro

ject

Suc

cess

CSF

s

o P

olic

y su

pp

orts

of d

onor

s

and

rec

ipie

nt g

over

nmen

to

Ad

equa

te in

stitu

tiona

l

com

pet

enci

eso

Str

ong

ow

ners

hip

and

in

stitu

tiona

l com

mitm

ents

Pro

ject

Suc

cess

o D

evel

opm

ent

imp

acts

o S

usta

inab

ility

o R

ecog

nitio

n

Figu

re 1

:Pro

ject

life

-cyc

le-b

ased

fram

ewor

k fo

r int

erna

tiona

l dev

elop

men

t pro

ject

s m

anag

emen

t.



AP

ER

S


This lack of confidence in the publicperception suggests some possibleexternal communication problems thatwill emerge again in a later analysis.

A factor analysis performed on thesuccess judgments of key stakeholders(questions Q7–Q12) indicates that themeasurements of the success percep-tion of the project may be simplified bygrouping the respondents around threeclusters: the management team, theagencies (both from recipients anddonor governments), and the targetgroup, including the general public.The score of the groups could thenbe calculated by averaging the scoresof the variables within the groups.However, in this study, scores of all thevariables are simply averaged to obtainthe overall subjective judgment of theproject success. This average is foundto correlate highly with the overallsuccess scores evaluated using morespecific and objective criteria, withPearson coefficients ranging from 0.488to 0.576. (See Table 4.) The highest cor-relation (0.576 between the averagesuccess judgment and the Q34) alsoindicates that the sustainability of proj-ect results has larger bearing on theperceived success judgment than othersuccess criteria.

The assessments by the respon-dents of the project management suc-cess in the life-cycle phases are equallypositive. However, the respondents areless optimistic in assessing the success

Q6 overall success perceived by the respondent 4.02 0.752Q7 success as perceived by manager 4.07 0.710Q8 success as perceived by implementing agency 4.08 0.738Q9 success as perceived by funding agency 4.08 0.717Q10 success as perceived by team members 4.07 0.755Q11 success as perceived by target beneficiaries 4.05 0 .771Q12 success as perceived by general public 3.83 0.925

4.09

Criteria-Based Success Evaluation by Life-Cycle PhasesConceptualizing phase

Q13 relevant needs 4.28 0.821Q14 right agency 4.23 0.701Q15 matching donor priorities 4.26 0.782Q16 matching recipient country 4.20 0.825

4.24 0.596

Planning phaseQ17 commitments of key parties 4.19 0.742Q18 sufficient resources 4.12 0.834Q19 org. capacity 4.04 0.872

4.12 0.668

Implementing phaseQ20 resources mobilization 3.93 0.848Q21 activities as scheduled 3.72 0.959Q22 output met specifications 3.98 0.869Q23 good accountability 4.03 0.781Q24 key stakeholders satisfied 3.97 0.805

3.93 0.692

Closing phaseQ25 end outputs accepted and used 4.15 0.798Q26 financial dues settled 4.13 0.745Q27 assets dissolved and transferred 4.04 0.808Q28 completion report accepted 4.05 0.763

4.09 0.602

Success Judgment by Stakeholders Mean SD

Table 3: Project success assessment, by stakeholders and at life-cycle phases.

Correlations Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

Table 4: Correlation of success judgment and criteria-based assessment.

1 Average success judgment 4.06 1

2 Q30 visible impact 4.21 0.706 0.516 1

3 Q31 institutional capacity 3.99 0.872 0.521 0.483 1

4 Q32 good reputation 4.04 0.763 0.530 0.440 0.484 1

5 Q33 good change for extension 4.01 0.861 0.488 0.404 0.469 0.518 1

6 Q34 sustained outcomes 4.07 0.812 0.576 0.553 0.586 0.515 0.564 1


of the implementation phase. As Table 3indicates, this phase has an averagescore (3.93) that is significantly lowerthan the average success scores of theother life-cycle phases. Also, most proj-ects seem to have schedule problems,as the mean score for the schedule cri-terion (Q21 at 3.72) is significantlylower than all the other mean scores.The finding confirms the common per-ception of the development communitythat the implementation phase is whenprojects exhibit most problems. It is notsurprising that after the implementa-tion phase, the closing phase is lesssuccessful than the early stages of theproject life cycle.

The success factors for the life-cyclephases and for the overall project suc-cess are first ranked according to theirperceived importance to the project.The respondents all agree that the

factors listed in our proposed modelare indeed important to the success oftheir projects: With a scale from 1 to 4,all the mean scores of the factorsexceed 3.4. (See Table 5.) Unlike thesuccess criteria, the data do not indi-cate statistically significant differencesamong the impacts of these factors inthe different life-cycle phases. Consist-ently throughout the life cycle of theprojects, the competency factor wasconsidered by the respondents as mostimportant. Although in different phases,this factor refers to the capacity to per-form assigned functions of differentplayers (designers in the first phase,planners in the second phase, projectmanager and team in the last twophases), all respondents indicate that thepredominant influence in each of thesephases is the capability of the internalactive stakeholders of the projects. This

is further highlighted by the relativelylow impact of effective consultationswith other stakeholders: lowest in theinitiation and closing phases, secondlowest in the planning phase and thirdout of six factors in the implementationphase.

Table 5 only summarizes the per-ception of the respondents on theimportance of the factors listed inthe model. In order to verify if theseperceptions truly reflect the realimpacts of the factors on the partialand overall success of the projects, therespondents were also asked to evalu-ate the extent to which these factorswere present in their project at the cor-responding phases. For each phase,regression analysis with the averagesuccess score of the phase as depend-ent variable and the presence of thefactors in the phase as independent

Rank Rank (withinImportance of CSFs Mean SD (overall) a phase)

Conceptualizing phaseQi35 understanding of environment 3.71 0.480 2 2Qi36 effective consultations 3.47 0.590 16 3Qi37 competency of project designers 3.71 0.484 1 1

Planning phaseQi38 compatible development priorities 3.45 0.578 18 4Qi39 adequate resources 3.61 0.552 7 2Qi40 effective consultations with planning 3.48 0.631 15 3Qi41 competency of project planners 3.64 0.536 5 1

Implementing phaseQi42 adequate supports 3.63 0.506 6 2Qi43 high motivation and interest 3.57 0.572 11 5Qi44 adequate knowledge and skills 3.66 0.496 3 1Qi45 adequate resources and support 3.57 0.552 10 4Qi46 compatible rules and procedures 3.50 0.557 14 6Qi47 effective consultations during implementing 3.58 0.556 9 3

Closing phaseQi48 adequate provisions in project plan 3.46 0.583 17 2Qi49 effective consultations during closing 3.43 0.575 19 3Qi50 competency of project manager 3.55 0.542 13 1

Overall project successQi51 clear policies of donors 3.64 0.522 4 1Qi52 local capacities 3.56 0.550 12 3Qi53 strong ownership of project 3.58 0.557 8 2

Table 5: Perceived importance of critical success factors.



AP

ER

S


variables can help determine theimpacts of these factors on the successof the phase. By taking into this analysisthe average success score of the previ-ous phase as additional independentvariable, the hypothesis that the suc-cess of each phase also has influenceover the success of the subsequentphase can be tested.

The results, summarized in Table 6,once again reconfirm the successfactors developed in the model. Ofthe 16 factors listed for the life-cyclephases, 10 have significant or moder-ately significant impacts on the partialproject management success scores,and no factor has a significant negativebeta coefficient in the regressionmodel. The analysis also confirms thedynamic linkages of the partial projectmanagement success of the successive

phases: In each life-cycle phase, theinfluence of the success of the preced-ing phase is always significant and, infact, far exceeds that of other successfactors listed in the model.

However, the most surprisingobservation from Table 6 is that theconsultation factors (Q36, Q40, Q47,and Q49) turn out to have more influ-ence on the project managementsuccess than most other factors, con-trasting the findings from Table 5. Theonly exception is in the planning phase,where external supports and resourcesare slightly more important. This obser-vation is further emphasized bythe lack of statistical significance of thecompetency factor in all phases. Inother words, despite the conventionalwisdom that the competence of the proj-ect designers, planners and the project

management team is most related tosuccess, the empirical evidence showsthat effective consultations are farmore important in influencing theproject success, at least for the interna-tional development projects. The mis-placement of attention on internalcompetency, rather than on externalcommunication and participation, pro-vides some explanations to the lack ofconfidence shown by the respondentsin their rating of how the public mayassess success of their projects (Q12,Table 3).

This finding may also have farreaching practical implications:• In order to improve the project per-

formance, the advocates of the partic-ipatory approach, which involves thestakeholders in the active participationin the design, planning, implementing,

Dependent Variable: SP1(Constant) 0.000 0.247 0.000Q35 understanding of environment 0.247 0.000Q36 effective consultations 0.302 0.000Q37 competency of project designers 0.023 0.688

Dependent Variable: SP2(Constant) 0.217 0.548 0.000SP1 0.521 0.000Q38 compatible development priorities 0.183 0.000Q39 adequate resources 0.141 0.002Q40 effective consultations with planning 0.075 0.105Q41 competency of project planners 0.008 0.858

Dependent Variable: SP3(Constant) 0.258 0.575 0.000SP2 0.548 0.000Q42 adequate supports 0.140 0.004Q43 high motivation and interest 0.069 0.088Q44 adequate knowledge and skills –0.039 0.397Q45 adequate resources and support 0.083 0.080Q46 compatible rules and procedures 0.010 0.846Q47 effective consultations during implementing 0.136 0.005

Dependent Variable: SP4(Constant) 0.000 0.543 0.000SP3 0.639 0.000Q48 adequate provisions –0.002 0.964Q49 effective consultations during closing 0.129 0.007Q50 competency of project manager 0.063 0.144

Table 6: Regression analysis of success factors.

Standardized Beta Sig. Adjusted R2 Model Sig.


monitoring and evaluating develop-ment projects, now have empiricalsupport;

• The focus of capacity building effortsby donors, local governments andmany implementing agencies ontraining seems to be not well placed.This study would indicate that moreefforts should be made in bringing thestakeholders together for the trainingactivities to be effective and haveimpacts on project performance.

ConclusionsIn this paper, a new framework is devel-oped based on the previous empiricaland conceptual research on criticalsuccess factors of projects, and adaptedwith special consideration on the char-acteristics and context of the interna-tional development projects. The keydistinction here is the recognition ofthe different sets of success criteria andconditions for the different stages ofthe project life cycle. For each phaseof the project, the explicit list of thesuccess criteria is developed based onanalysis of the results typically expect-ed at the end of the phase to provide aresult-based framework to evaluate theproject management performance.Meeting these success criteria requiresfavorable internal and external condi-tions that include the high qualityinputs from the preceding phase as wellas other factors that are derived froman understanding of the activitiesrequired for, and the parties involvedin, the phases. The dynamic linkagesbetween the criteria and factors in suc-cessive phases provide a more solidconceptual foundation to evaluate theproject’s current and future status,because the different activities, players,deliverables and environments at thevarious project phases necessitate dif-ferent conditions for success.

By focusing on international devel-opment projects, the proposed frame-work helps fill the knowledge gap in thestudies of this important project man-agement application area. The contextof international development projects,

with its characteristics and inherentproject logic, allows for a clear pictureof the key project players involved andtheir roles in the different phases of theproject, and a better understanding ofthe conditions required in ensuringproject management and projectsuccess.

The framework may have importantpractical implications. It emphasizesthe need to “start right” developmentprojects: the success of the early phaseshave strong impacts on later stages.Separating the success criteria andconditions by life-cycle phases alsoallows for more specific descriptions ofthe conditions to be evaluated. Forexample, the competency factor com-monly recognized in most research cannow be broken down into different setsof skills and knowledge required by theproject designers, planners or imple-mentation team manager and mem-bers at different stages of the project.Project management performance cannow be evaluated in each of the phases,and the framework presents a practicalmonitoring and evaluating tool thatcan be used very early in the project lifecycle, and thus facilitate timely correc-tive actions. Because the frameworksupports the whole project life cycle,this instrument can be useful to theproject manager during the implemen-tation, but also to the designers, plan-ners and external reviewers who areinvolved with the project at earlierstages. The evaluation of the criticalsuccess factors at each stage will helpforecast the future status and predictproject results. More important from apractical standpoint, the results clarifythe weak areas needing special atten-tion and support for successful com-pletion. On the other hand, the vastdiversity of international developmentprojects creates some limits on thepractical application of the model:the success criteria and factors mayneed to be further adapted and refinedfor specific categories of IDP projects.

The analysis based on the proposedframework and a field survey with ODA

and INGO projects confirms the validityof the model. It also illustrates the valueof the model in providing practicalinsights on success and failure condi-tions of these projects. Empirical dataemphasize the importance of effectiveconsultancy and participation of thestakeholders in all life-cycle phases.Although the survey was conductedonly in two selected countries in South-East Asia, it is believed that the findings,supported by the general conceptualframework, will have practical implica-tions in managing international devel-opment projects in other developingcountries. �

ReferencesAndersen, E. S., & Jessen, S. A. (2000).Project evaluation scheme: A tool forevaluating project status and predict-ing project results. ProjectManagement Journal, 6(1), 61–69.

Baccarini, D. (1999). The logicalframework method for defining projectsuccess. Project Management Journal,30(4), 25–32.

Baker, B. N., Murphy, D. C., & Fisher, D.(1983). Factors affecting project suc-cess. In D. I. Cleland & W. R. King,(Eds.), Project management handbook(pp. 902–919). New York: Van Nostrand.

Belassi, W., & Tukel, O. I. (1996). A newframework for determining criticalsuccess/failure factors in projects.International Journal of ProjectManagement, 14(3), 141–151.

Cleland, D. I., & King, W. R. (1983).Systems analysis and project manage-ment. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Coleman, G. (1987). Logical frameworkapproach to the monitoring and evalu-ation of agricultural and rural develop-ment projects. Project Appraisal, 2(4),251–259.

Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The “real”success factors on projects.International Journal of ProjectManagement, 20, 185–190.

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2001).Business research methods. Boston:McGraw-Hill.



AP

ER

S


PA

PE

RS

Diallo, A., & Thuillier, D. (2004). Thesuccess dimensions of internationaldevelopment projects: The perceptionsof African project coordinators.International Journal of ProjectManagement, 22, 19–31.

Diallo A., & Thuillier, D. (2005). Thesuccess of international projects, trust,and communication: An African per-spective. International Journal ofProject Management, 23(3), 237–252.

Fortune J., & White, D. (2006). Framingof project success critical success fac-tors by a system model. InternationalJournal of Project Management, 24(1),53–65.

Gasper, D. (2000). Evaluating the “logi-cal framework approach” towardslearning-oriented development evalu-ation. Public Administration andDevelopment, 20, 17–28.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s conse-quences (2nd ed.). London: SagePublications.

Kwak,Y. H. (2002, September). Criticalsuccess factors in international devel-opment project management. Paperpresented at the CIB 10th InternationalSymposium Construction Innovation &Global Competitiveness, Cincinnati,Ohio.

Liu, A. N. N., & Walker, A. (1998).Evaluation of project outcomes.Construction Management &Economics, 16, 109–219.

Locke, D. (1984). Project management.New York: St. Martins.

Martin, C. C. (1974). Project manage-ment. New York: St. Martins.

Pallage, S., & Robe, M. A. (1998).Foreign aid and the business cycle

(Cahier de recherche working paperno. 63). Center for Research on EconomicFluctuations and Employment.

Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P.(1991). Measurements, design, andanalysis: An integrated approach.Mahwah, NJ: LEA Publishers.

Pinto, J. K., & Mantel, S. J., Jr. (1990).The causes of project failure. IEEETransactions on EngineeringManagement, 37(4), 269–276.

Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1987).Critical factors in successful projectimplementation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 34(1),22–27.

Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1989).Critical success factors in R&D proj-ects. Research TechnologyManagement, 32(1), 31–35.

Project Management Institute (PMI).(2004). A guide to the project manage-ment body of knowledge (PMBOK®

guide) (3rd ed.). Newtown Square, PA:Author.

Sayles, L. R., & Chandler, M. K. (1971).Managing large systems. New York:Harper & Row.

United Nations DevelopmentProgrammes (UNDP). (2004). Humandevelopment report 2004. New York:UNDP.

Westerveld, E. (2003). The projectexcellence model: Linking success cri-teria and critical success factors.International Journal of ProjectManagement, 21, 411–418.

White, D., & Fortune, J. (2002). Currentpractice in project management: Anempirical study. International Journalof Project Management, 20, 1–11.

Wiggins, S., & Shields, D. (1995).Clarifying the “logical framework” as atool for planning and managing devel-opment projects. Project Appraisal, 10,2–12.

Youker, R. (1999). Managing interna-tional development projects: Lessonslearned. Project Management Journal,30(2), 6–7.

Do Ba Khang is an associate professor in theSchool of Management, Asian Institute ofTechnology, Bangkok, Thailand. He completedhis first master’s degree in mathematics fromthe Eotvos Lorand University in Budapest,Hungary, and holds a MSc and a Dr. Tech. Sc. inindustrial engineering from the Asian Instituteof Technology, Thailand. His current researchinterests focus on the adoption of project man-agement practices in developing countries inAsia. He provides consulting services to variousinternational bodies, governmental agencies,and nongovernmental organizations in theregion.

Tun Lin Moe holds a MA in business communica-tion and management from the University of theThai Chamber of Commerce and a PhD in devel-opment administration from National Instituteof Development Administration, Thailand. Hewas appointed a postdoctoral fellow at the Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand, andKarlsruhe University, Germany. He has morethan 7 years of teaching experience in degreeprograms at internationally accredited universi-ties in Thailand. He also has more than 7 yearsof work experience in an international develop-ment agency, a philanthropy organization, andbusiness organizations. He is currently study-ing in a master’s degree program in publicpolicy at Pennsylvania State University.

Documents

PM Journal0803 Criterias for International Development Pojects