The success of international development projects, trust and communication: an African perspective

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

PROJECT MANAGEMENT International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 237–252 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

The success of international development projects, trust and communication: an African perspective Amadou Diallo, Denis Thuillier

*

Universite´ du Que´bec a` Montre´al (UQAM), E´cole des Sciences de la Gestion, De´pt. Management et Technologie, 315 Ste Catherine Est, CP 6192, Montre´al, Que´., Canada H3C 4R2 Received 18 June 2003; received in revised form 16 January 2004; accepted 8 October 2004

Abstract Project success is strongly linked to communication and cooperation between stakeholders. This research explores the relationship between trust and communication and tests the influence of these factors upon project success and success criteria for international development projects financed by multilateral institutions in sub-Saharan Africa. The research analyses the coordinatorsÕ perceptions of project success, communication climate and interpersonal relationship between himself and his stakeholders (task manager in the multilateral agency, national supervisor) and within the project team. Data were collected from questionnaires completed by project coordinators of development projects. The statistical analysis confirms that trust and communication between players are proxy variables. Trust between the task manager and the coordinator is the key success factor, whereas team cohesion is the second most important factor. Trust between the coordinator and his national supervisor does not play a prominent role, although the task manager considers significant local autonomy for the coordinator a prerequisite for funding a subsequent phase when the project comes to an end. Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved. Keywords: Project success; Criteria; Success factors; International development; Trust; Communication; Stakeholders; World bank; Project manager; Africa

1. Introduction Most international assistance provided to developing countries is managed by projects. These projects are financed by multilateral development agencies (the World Bank, the European Union, the United Nations Development Program, the Inter-American Development Bank, the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, etc.), bilateral agencies (USAID, the French Cooperation, CIDA) and the many organizations and departments of international cooperation established by former colonial rulers and the industrialized countries. Over the last few decades, international *

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 514 987 3000x7783. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Thuillier).

0263-7863/$30.00 Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.10.002

aid programs were successful in helping developing and emerging countries to make real progress in the health system, in agriculture and in the education system. However, it is clear that the effectiveness of economic reform projects is still being debated. Poverty reduction remains a long-term objective [1–5]. Our intention here is not, however, to assess the validity of development policies implemented by multilateral institutions [6,7]. The success of an international development project – its long-term impact on the prosperity of the local population – surely depends on how well it was prepared, and the policies behind its design (a project is always a more or less appropriate response to specific needs). However, international development projects (ID projects) are identified, prepared and implemented within a specific context [8]. There are many

238

A. Diallo, D. Thuillier / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 237–252

stakeholders, there are significant political risks, and there are demanding local constraints. The local members of the project management unit may have limited project management skills and the economic rationality on which project management is based does not always fit with local values [9,10]. The stakeholders belong to different cultures, and finally, to make matters worse, those preparing and conducting transactions are separated by huge distances. Given this context and the very ‘‘transaction-based’’ nature of assistance projects, one might wonder whether the quality of interpersonal relationships and of communication between key players are not critical success factors, independently of the specific knowledge, skills and competencies required. This is precisely the focus of this research, which aims to assess the influence of interpersonal relationships, trust and communication, on the success of ID projects. The paper is organised into five parts. The first section provides a review of the project management literature on success, success criteria and success factors. The second section presents the unique characteristics of international development projects and the third section begins with a review of the literature on the role played by trust between individuals, within work groups and within project teams. This discussion leads to the formulation of the principal issues addressed in this research. The fourth section covers the methodology and the statistical strategy used and the final section presents statistical results and related comments. The conclusion is a discussion of the research results and their implications for ID project management.

2. Project success, success criteria and success factors There is an abundance of literature on project success, success criteria and success factors for traditional projects. Success criteria correspond to the dimensions (or measures) on which the success of the project is judged whereas success factors are key variables that explain the success of the project. In other words, they are inputs to the management system that lead directly or indirectly to the success of a project [11]. Success can indeed be evaluated only when the criteria are adequately defined. For the project manager, success criteria generally correspond to the traditional constraints: time, cost and compliance with the clientÕs terms of reference or ‘‘quality’’. In construction and engineering, success is evaluated primarily through the assessment of the output quality, and through the evaluation of the project management performance whose criteria are objective, well-accepted and measurable. But as the field of project management now includes sectors like biotechnology, information technology, process reengineering, institutional strengthening, social work, etc., the clientÕs agenda is different. Whether it is a pri-

vate firm or an institution, the client cannot evaluate the success of its project without referring to the objectives that governed the identification, the preparation and the project design. Beyond time and costs, the raison dÕeˆtre of a project lies in its objectives as stated in the logical framework: project management success does not mean project success [12] although in the case of construction projects they are closely linked [13]. Furthermore, success criteria will differ or will be weighted differently, depending upon whether the evaluation is performed by a project manager, a client, or one of the key stakeholders. Each stakeholder perceives the success according to criteria (and a hierarchy of the criteria) that comply with its own agenda. There is no ‘‘absolute’’ success or consistency in success appreciation over time: there is only ‘‘perceived success’’ [14– 16]. Even when everybody agrees on a list of criteria, determining the success ‘‘rate’’ still remains a rather difficult task. Schedule and budget management may be assessed through direct measures while quality management may be assessed through pass or fail criteria. However, the clientÕs satisfaction is not objectively measurable and the same applies to the knowledge or the experience accumulated throughout the project, the magnitude of organisational impacts, or of any other intangible benefits induced. The success factors themselves have made the object of several studies [17–25]. Pinto and Slevin [17,19] suggest that success is linked to exogenous and endogenous factors. These factors include the control level (especially schedule and cost), the impact on the client, the support of the general management of the organization, communication, etc., but also less controllable factors such as the environment, the political context, the competence of the project manager, etc. The diversity of the factors mentioned by the project management literature is considerable: these depend on the scope, the nature and the originality of the projects. However, one is struck by the fact that research reported in the project management literature only rarely examines the link between the success factors and the success criteria (or dimensions). However, it is obvious that one factor will explain one or more success criteria, but not all of them [24,25]. The literature on success factors and success criteria for international development projects is scarce and the empirical research specifically dedicated to management of ID projects is even more rare. This lead us to undertake a preliminary exploratory investigation of the success criteria (dimensions) for ID projects in subSaharan Africa and an investigation of the criteria hierarchy each stakeholder uses in assessing project success [26]. More specifically, our goal was to understand how project coordinators perceived the success of their project and how they perceived the main stakeholdersÕ assessment of project success. We focused on an analysis

A. Diallo, D. Thuillier / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 237–252

of perceived success (at least as it is perceived by the coordinator who is the central stakeholder). We relied on the coordinatorÕs understanding with, as a premise, the commonly accepted principle that individuals act (and therefore manage a project) according to their own perceptions of reality and act based on their perception of how the most influential stakeholders feel. The results of this preliminary investigation showed that coordinators of development projects assessed project success only with two criteria: the management performance (time, cost and ‘‘quality’’) and the projectÕs ‘‘profile’’: the visibility and/or the reputation earned by their project. The project impact, which captures the performance of the project with respect to its objectives as stated in the logical framework, was not a significant criteria. 1

3. The characteristics of ID projects According to Youker [8] international development projects are medium to large public projects and/or programs financed by multilateral development banks, the United Nations associated agencies, bilateral agencies, non-governmental organizations and government departments in developing countries. Like others, ID projects deliver goods or services. Originally, most projects were ‘‘hard’’ projects like civil works, railroads, power plants, etc., but the portfolio has changed to include an ever-increasing portion of ‘‘soft’’ projects in education, health, human development, capacity building, etc. ID projects are managed either by national project management units acting with autonomy, or by teams of nationals embedded into ministries, national departments, or institutions. The management of the project can also be delegated (as often occurs in bilateral assistance) to executing agencies that may be private companies (such as engineering or consulting firms), NGOs or international cooperation departments within various institutions (i.e. universities and colleges for projects in education, or hospitals for health and nutrition projects). In fact, the project management unit of an ID project only manages administrative processes (as is also the case for ‘‘classic’’ projects). Within the framework of multilateral agency guidelines, the project team is involved in the procurement, organisation and control of activities carried out by engineering firms, subcontractors, consultants, etc. Five stakeholders are directly involved in processes in ID projects:

1 Diallo and Thuillier [26] discuss possible reasons for such surprising result.

239

1. The national project coordinator (or project manager), who is the person responsible for the dayto-day management. He or she is in charge of the operations and leads the project team. 2. The task manager located in the headquarters of the multilateral development agency, who supervises the projectÕs implementation and makes sure that the guidelines of the international institution are strictly respected by the projectÕs national management unit. 3. The national supervisor, who is the high-ranking civil servant (a national department director or sometimes the minister himself) to whom the national coordinator reports. 4. The project team, which is under the coordinatorÕs authority. The team is not exactly an external player but no matter what its influence, the coordinator cannot function effectively without the project team. 5. The various firms (engineers, subcontractors, consultants, etc.). It may come as a surprise that the real client does not appear on this list. In multilateral aid projects, the client is usually the countryÕs residents or a sub-set thereof called ‘‘the beneficiaries.’’ The beneficiaries, who may sometimes participate in the project identification phase (needs assessment), can rarely be effective as clients once a project is in execution. This is due to the lack of representative authorities or organisations, especially when it comes to validating the quality of the project outputs. There are exceptions. Some projects, like the ‘‘Social Funds’’ are designed and managed under a so-called ‘‘participative approach’’. This aims to enhance the position of the beneficiaries as real stakeholders. They remain, in spite of their success, limited to social interventions [27]. International development projects follow transactional processes that have been codified by the lending institutions under guidelines in order to guarantee that projects maintain rigor and transparency in how tasks are performed and contracts awarded. For example, a multilateral institution or its technical representative (the task manager) will not intervene directly in the projectÕs day-to-day management. However, he or she is updated on each step of the project, and the coordinator must ask the task manager for a ‘‘no objection’’ when it comes to proceed with major transactions (terms of references, short lists, contracts awards, etc.). The task manager can reject the coordinatorÕs request but such decision is not made without good reason. Generally, a rejection means the project team has strayed too far from guidelines or that the process itself includes an activity that was inadequately planned or simply does not conform to the project plan. When the task manager does not grant his no-objection, the process must be repeated at the local level and face local constraints again before the coordinator makes a second request for a

240

A. Diallo, D. Thuillier / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 237–252

‘‘no-objection’’. This will result in a delay that disrupts the project schedule and carries all the related impacts. The effectiveness of actors and, by extension, the success of the project itself is therefore very dependent on the quality of interpersonal relationships and communication between stakeholders. The purpose of this study is to examine the quality of interpersonal relationships, trust and communication between coordinators and their task manager, between coordinators and their national supervisor, and within members of the project team. The goal is to identify the ‘‘soft’’ factors that can play a decisive role in the overall success of a project, or explain performance according to different success criteria.

4. Trust and communication between individuals and within the project team 4.1. The work groups A work group is a social system in which individuals with specific but interdependent roles collectively share responsibility for the production of goods or services [27–30]. A project team is a work group, but the reverse is not true. A project team is set up to achieve specific objectives under constraints and within a given period of time. Moreover, the entire group of actors in ID projects (coordinator, project team, task manager and national supervisor) also meets this definition, even if the task manager and the national supervisor are more functional than operational and could therefore be considered more as stakeholders than full members of the team. This is a semi-autonomous team (control is exercised by the coordinator and team activities are regulated by the task manager) with only one key member, the task manager, occasionally working locally. The literature on project teams and on work groups in general should provide enough theoretical background to grasp the nature of the problem presented by interpersonal relationships and communication, their impact on project success and on success criteria. There is no shortage of literature on work groups. The subject has been examined by social psychologists or organisational psychologists and according to different schools (human relations, system dynamics, and behaviourism). The empirical literature is abundant. The concept of team originated in the 1930s in the United States. It proved of great economic value, and was developed mostly with diverse but complementary approaches. Once the mechanism of work groups had been understood, research focused on group productivity or effectiveness. Management literature naturally took over, gradually putting the accent on groups of managers or other professionals (and on research and develop-

ment teams). Comprehensive literature reviews can be found in [31–33]. 4.2. The project team Literature on project teams is less wide-ranging, of uneven quality, and remains quite undifferentiated. One is obliged to cull work that distinctly resembles a ‘‘guru of the month’’ approach (the expression from [34]), the kind found in some professional publications. A more scientific approach does, however, exist. It focuses on processes and attempts to:  identify the performance factors and the methods used to speed up the ‘‘team building’’ or ‘‘team development’’ process, in order for the group to quickly achieve a high level of effectiveness [35–40];  understand the role of the project manager, the kind of person who is suitable for this position, the characteristics of leadership and their effect on the teamÕs effectiveness and on project success [41–43]. This literature identifies many factors that explain team performance. It is impossible to thoroughly summarize the research, particularly since it includes descriptive factors (such as the teamÕs structure, organization or diversity), support factors (competencies, communication) and more abstract factors that are difficult to grasp, such as cooperation, team membersÕ commitment or empowerment. These are latent variables or complex constructs (concepts) of which only manifestations may be observed. But constructs boundaries are unclear and ‘‘new’’ constructs are built upon ‘‘parts’’ that well accepted constructs have in common. All this makes the emergence of fundamental explanatory factors especially challenging. The authors do not always make a clear distinction between support and process factors (team building or team development) and, in any event, one influences the other. Furthermore, the residual influence of time has received little direct attention; in other words, the influence that would be independent of its implicit role in the processes mentioned above [44]. Guzzo and Dickson [33] in a attempt to built a taxonomy of team performance factors suggest that factors may be classified into three categories:  organisational design (autonomy, interdependence, definition of responsibilities),  contextual or support variables (such as competencies or communication),  mediating variables such as cooperation, mutual aid or cohesion. But each variable in a given cluster also clearly depends on other factors. The level of team cooperation depends on factors such as the teamÕs composition,

A. Diallo, D. Thuillier / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 237–252

membersÕ status, or their shared history. Autonomy on the other hand is related to how professional the members are. It will increase with the level of each memberÕs knowledge and competence (contextual variables) and it will depend on trust among team members (see below). The interdependence required is a function of the complexity of the teamÕs tasks and, last but not least, the maturity of the team has an effect on cooperation, mutual aid and communication. In spite of many excellent attempts, a truly thorough listing of interpersonal factors of team effectiveness and of project success still remains to be established. 4.3. Trust, communication, and the research questions The concept of trust is not a new one. However it is worth mentioning that it has only recently been the focus of research in project management [45,46]. Each member of a team begins a project with some concerns about what they can expect of their colleagues, carries expectations concerning their work relationships and, due to his or her own individual nature or circumstances, is inclined to behave in certain ways. When team members meet for the first time, trust, communication and cooperation within the team and between the major stakeholders are not taken for granted. But without trust, communication and cooperation, a team cannot be effective in accomplishing goals. Trust is a psychological state in which Individual A, given a specific situation, takes the risk of assuming that Individual BÕs first reflex will be to adopt a behaviour (judgement, a position or action) that meets Individual AÕs expectations. Trust takes the form of a wager on the behaviour of another. A certain amount of risk is accepted (i.e. individual A is somewhat vulnerable . . .) in exchange for a reduction in the transaction costs associated with the management of the situation [47–52]. The concept of trust is integral to what have become BlauÕs classic theories of social exchange [53], and to the transaction costs theory developed by Coase [54] and Williamson [55,56]. Beccera and Gupta [57] have made an attempt to integrate the concept of trust into these conceptual frameworks. Trust between individuals is either affect-based (emotional) or knowledge-based (the result of a cognitive process) and both can interfere [58–60]. Affect-based trust could be considered in certain extent as being similar to ‘‘trust at first sight’’ while knowledge-based trust is built steadily on ongoing relations between the parties over time. Knowledge-based trust emerges through communication (particularly professional communication) in which each player implicitly reveals to the other his or her values, expertise, integrity, consistency, loyalty, sense of justice, etc. [50,63–67]. A perception of the otherÕs trustworthiness develops over time, uncertainty over basic issues gradually disappears, and a sense

241

of trust becomes established. Trust (of any kind) speeds up negotiation processes and in most cases, cuts transaction costs. Trust is a prerequisite for autonomy (hence the definition of trust; if you trust me, you will let me act independently). Trust is necessary for cooperation, which is in turn the social lubricant that allows autonomous but interdependent group members (see the definition of the project team above) to achieve common goals harmoniously [61,62]. Technically dependent members of a group must cooperate, because cooperation is an indispensable part of the relational dependence required for their group to be truly functional. It is also likely that, given the above definition, trust and cooperation among group members become more important as their tasks require more interdependence in their working relationships. Trust may be considered an independent variable when it is affect-based and a dependent variable when it is knowledge-based. A minimum of trust is essential because fair communication cannot occur if information exchange is clouded with doubts over motives. In the analysis which follows, we take trust to be an independent variable that generates autonomy, cooperation and, as a result, effectiveness. But we will also consider trust a dependent variable that can be explained by the quality of communication between stakeholders. As it was the case for ID projects success, success criteria and success factors, we were unable to find research papers on ID project teams and interpersonal relationships between main ID projects stakeholders. Therefore, building on the literature presented in the above sections, we are interested in: (a) The main characteristics of interpersonal relationships between the coordinator of an ID project and the task manager, between the coordinator and his national supervisor, and among members of the project team. (b) The influence each of these characteristics may have on the quality of communication between the coordinator and the project stakeholders. (c) The influence of communication and interpersonal relationships between stakeholders on ID projects performance, both in terms of success and of success criteria. This is an exploratory investigation. However, it is our hope to confirm through statistical analysis that: Assertion 1: communication, trust and autonomy are virtually interchangeable, i.e. they are almost perfectly correlated. Assertion 2: trust and autonomy accorded by one actor to another is the result of communication experiences; i.e. it develops over time.

242

A. Diallo, D. Thuillier / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 237–252

Assertion 3: in ID projects, trust is a significant success factor (although not the only one), both the trust between the project coordinator and his task manager and the trust between the coordinator and his national supervisor. Assertion 4: Trust within the project team (or any other proxy variable) is strongly associated with the success of the project and the various success criteria of ID projects.

5. Methodology Diallo and Thuillier [26] provide a description of the surveyÕs database. We collected data by way of questionnaires delivered by mail. We received 93 completed questionnaires from about 600 sent out to African project coordinators (350 were sent to Francophones, 250 to Anglophones). The apparent response rate, modest as it was (15%), is satisfactory considering that a number of questionnaires were sent to postal boxes in institutions where such mail does not necessarily reach the intended recipient. The postmarks on responses indicated that the questionnaires came from at least 26 countries most of them south of Sahara. Francophone and Anglophone response rates were proportional to linguistic populations in sub-Saharan Africa. Diallo and Thuillier [26] provide a discussion of possible biases arising from the response rate and non-respondents, the geographical representativeness of the sample, the distribution of projects by sector and systematic bias due to ‘‘socially desirable’’ responses. As a result of this discussion, generalisation of findings to the overall population of projects in sub-Saharan Africa is considered reasonable. However, we will elaborate more specifically on the robustness of empirical estimates in Section 6. Appendix A presents the projectsÕ main characteristics and a description of project coordinatorsÕ status and income. The research uses data from nine of the thirteen sections in the questionnaire. Listed in the order they appeared in the questionnaire, these sections provide information on:  General project description, such as the sector, duration, amount of funding awarded and respective contributions of the principal donor agencies.  The global judgement of the coordinator on the success of his project as he perceives it.  The coordinatorÕs appreciation of statements (items) that make reference to success criteria (such as time, budget, reputation and the beneficiaries satisfaction). The factorial analysis performed in the above mentioned research provided three ‘‘macro-dimensions,’’ (or coordinatorÕs success criteria. . .) to be discussed later.

 The coordinatorÕs opinion on statements concerning the nature and quality of interpersonal relationships, trust and communication between: – the coordinator and the task manager in the multilateral development agency, – the coordinator and his national supervisor, – the members of the project team (see Appendix B).  Information on specific contextual events, including the countryÕs suspension 2 by donors and stakeholder turnover.  The coordinatorÕs opinion on how the stakeholders judge the success of his project, in particular the task manager in the international development institution, his national supervisor and the members of the project team.  Socio-demographic information on the coordinatorÕs age, sex, professional training, previous project management experience, professional status and wages. Information that refers to a subjective judgement was rated on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 (i.e. from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to ‘‘strongly agree’’) or on a binary scale (0,1) when it was required to answer without any subjectivity. It was mentioned above that the questionnaire included a series of statements about the projectÕs success criteria. We will not review here the statements in detail or the factorial analysis of these elementary dimensions (see [26]). We would just say that the factor analysis revealed three principal components or ‘‘macro dimensions’’ (projects success criteria): MANAGEMENT, PROFILE and IMPACT. Nominal logistic regression show that only the MANAGEMENT 3 and PROFILE criteria explained the coordinatorÕs judgement of the projectÕs success, at least as it was perceived by the coordinator according to his or her response to the first assertion in the questionnaire: My project is a success (SUCCESS). Assertions describing the relationship between stakeholders were tested for consistency by calculating CronbachÕs alpha for the total sample and for random sub-groups. The results were satisfactory, always exceeding 0.80 in those groups of statements that were finally retained. For each of the research questions (a, b and c) listed at the end of Section 4, the analysis proceeded with a simple and direct statistical strategy:

2 Multilateral development agencies suspend disbursements when debt repayments are overdue without just cause or when the local political situation is beyond control. 3 Drawing on nominal regression it appears that the MANAGEMENT criteria was the most significant (p < 0.000). Visibility (PROFILE) came second (p < 0.002) and, surprisingly, as already mentioned in note 1 Section 2, the IMPACT criteria did not appear to be significant (p < 0.264). [26] includes a discussion of this last result.

A. Diallo, D. Thuillier / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 237–252

 Factor analysis with the statements (Appendix B) in order to identify meaningful latent variables or ‘‘constructs’’ that drive interpersonal relations between stakeholders and within the project team.  Nominal regression 4 with the communication between stakeholders and within the team as the dependent variable and the components of the interpersonal relations as factors.  Nominal regression with the success criteria (MANAGEMENT, PROFILE, IMPACT) and the success (SUCCESS) as dependent variables and the quality of communication between stakeholders and within the team as factor.  The same as above but with the components of interpersonal relationship as factors of stakeholder communication and team communication. The most significant results are discussed in what follows. For better understanding please note that TM stands for task manager, CR for project coordinator, NS for national supervisor of the coordinator and TE for project team. Appendix B includes a complete description of the questions the coordinators were asked to respond to.

6. Results of the empirical (statistical) analysis 6.1. Components of relationships between stakeholders 6.1.1. The coordinator–task manager interpersonal relationship Optimization after orthogonal rotation revealed three components. Co-ordinates lower than 0.5 after rotation were removed in order to improve the emergence of the constructs, whose meanings are discussed later: Component 1: TM AUTONOMY, TM TRUST, TM RELIABILITY, TM RESPECT, TM VALUES, TM UNDERSTANDING

4

Statistical analysis of Likert scales data is not tractable with classical multivariate regression owing to the violation of usual assumptions. Multiple discriminant analysis or multinomial logistic regression stand as accepted alternatives for such surveys. These techniques are common in business research, marketing, psychology or medical sciences. Logistic regression does not require a normally distributed dependant variable, linearity between dependent and independents, homoscedasticity, independents to be intervals, etc. However, logistic regression is sensitive to multicollinearity and sample size (as maximum likelihood estimation implies asymptotic normality). Reliability of our estimates may be altered by correlation between variables and by the limited number of cases in our sample for each combination of independents. For this reason, we tested robustness on random sub samples to assess the stability of estimations before jumping to premature conclusions.

243

This proved to be a very significant and consistent component. It demonstrates the quality of relationships and, after rotation, explains 37% of the common variance in responses to the statements in the questionnaire. The combination of these particular characteristics is not only intuitively appealing but it is also supported by the specific literature (see Section 3). Non-parametric correlations show that trust and autonomy are very highly correlated in our population (a KendallÕs s of 0.652), and the same is true of trust and reliability between these two stakeholders (a KendallÕs s of 0.584). These variables are virtually interchangeable. We call this component TM TRUST (for trust between the coordinator and the task manager). Component 2: TM AGE, CR VISITS TM, TM FAMILY The coordinators and their task managers are approximately the same age. Coordinators visit their task managers in the headquarters of the multilateral funding institution, and also visit their task managers at home (although this does not apply for each case) during work-related visits. The variance explained by this component, which we label CR VISITS TM, represents 17% of the common variance. Component 3: TM VISITS CR, TM IN MY HOME Component 3 is the reciprocal of component 2. The task managers supervise project activities by regularly visiting the project team and local officials. They also make social visits to the home of the project coordinators, as is the customary in Africa. This component, which we call TM VISITS CR, explains 13% of the common variance. 6.1.2. The coordinator–national supervisor relationship In this case more statements were tested and retained for analysis since we were trying to understand the influence of phenomena such as actors having known each other as students (which may have given them more interests in common than just belonging to the same generation) or having a language in common other than French or English, which might indicate that they belong to the same ethnic group (see Appendix B). Optimization after orthogonal rotation again produced three distinct components. Component 1: NS RELIABILITY, NS TRUST, NS AUTONOMY, NS INFORMED, CR VISITS NS, NS VALUES, NS VISITS CR Just as in the relationship with the task manager, this component exerts a strong influence. Again we found a correlation between trust and autonomy (with a KendallÕs s of 0.578). Professional visits, both of coordinators to meet their national supervisors and vice versa, show up in the same component. In fact, this variable captured frequent contacts between local actors. Sometimes visits are informal or even impromptu (coordinatorsÕ

244

A. Diallo, D. Thuillier / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 237–252

offices are never far from the supervising departments). It therefore makes sense that these variables become grouped into the same component. Given this componentÕs similarity to the first component revealed in the analysis of task manager-coordinator relationship, we name it NS TRUST. It explains 30% of the common variance. Component 2: STUDIES, NS AGE, NS IN MY HOME, NS FAMILY This is a homogeneous group of variables that can be understood in terms of friendships between the coordinators and the national supervisor. They share common backgrounds. Their relationship goes beyond professional ties. The phenomenon of actors having known each other as students in the same school (STUDIES) 5 and the fact that they both socialise at the family level lead us to call this component NS FRIENDSHIP. It accounted for 14% of the common variance. Component 3: NS VALUES, NS RESPECT The variable LANGUAGE was not included in this construct because it weighted only 0.481, hence slightly under the limit of 0.500 (which is arbitrary. . .). There is clearly a group ‘‘values-respect-language’’. We believe that this construct captures the fact that both the coordinator and his or her national supervisor belong to the same cultural community. Since values and culture (and language) are closely related, this component is named hereafter NS CULTURE. It accounted for 12% of common variance.

Component 2: KNOW EACH OTHER, CR KNOWS THEM These statements reveal the background or the common heritage shared by team members. We call this construct TE BACKGROUND. It explains 16% of the common variance. Component 3: TE FAMILY, TE SOLIDARITY This factor shows the presence of relationships between team members that went beyond professional connections. They have personal relationships that include knowing each otherÕs families and providing assistance to each other. We name the construct TE LINKS. It accounts for 15% of common variance. Component 4: CHOICE, CONTRACTUAL The coordinator may have chosen individuals in the team, so factor analysis associates this with the presence of contractual team members in the project implementation unit. We label the component TE CHOICE. It explains 12% of the common variance. 6.2. The communication and the interpersonal relationships components

6.1.3. Relationships in the project team Members of a project team are generally appointed by the local government, but coordinators may be given the opportunity to participate in the selection process. Most of the team members are civil servants or civil servants seconded to the project but sometimes contractuals from the private sector are hired for the duration of the project. Statements in the questionnaire therefore took this into account. They also included assertions dealing with interpersonal relationships between team members (see Appendix B). Component 1: NO ABSENTEEISM, ATMOSPHERE, NO RIVALRIES, MOTIVATION, TE AUTONOMY, MUTUAL AID This component is homogeneous and very strongly weighted by the first four variables. The component, which we label TE COHESION, explains 29% of the common variance.

Communication was found to be characterised by how well information circulated among the actors, between the coordinator and the stakeholders, as well as among the members of the project team. Since the coordinator is the team leader and also belongs to it as a member, we did not consider the communication between them. The project team is not an exogenous stakeholder from the coordinatorÕs point of view; the coordinator leads the team and carries responsibility for what it does. Therefore his or her judgment vis-a`vis the team is biased. On the other hand, the coordinator is perfectly capable of judging how well information circulates within the team without the risk of any such bias. By making communication variables (TM COMM, NS COMM, TE COMM) between stakeholders dependent, we assumed that it was explained a priori by the characteristics of the relationship, in particular by trust. We have also seen that the opposite may be true; trust can be established through professional communication (see Section 4.2). Non-parametric tests were conducted to discern any significant changes in trust (and in communication) between the coordinator and the two principal stakeholders that might have occurred over time. 6 The level of trust between actors was not found to have changed; a result that supports the hypothesis that trust between actors is more affect-

5 African francophones have an expression to describe the shared background resulting from completing part or all of their studies together; they call the person their ‘‘promotionnaire,’’ which refers to being of the same group of scholars.

6 Taking care to select only those cases where neither the task manager nor the national supervisor changed since the beginning of the project. The questionnaire included contextual variables: see Section 4.

A. Diallo, D. Thuillier / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 237–252

245

Table 1 Hierarchy of communication factors between stakeholders

Pseudo R2 (Cox and Snell)

Coordinator Task manager TM COMM n = 86

Coordinator National supervisor NS COMM n = 83

1

1

Global

2

0.649 TM TRUST CR VISITS TM TM VISITS CR

0.000 ns 0.001

0.000 ns 0.001

2

1

0.676

Global

2

0.625

0.000 ns 0.035

NS TRUST NS FRIENDSHIP NS CULTURE TE TE TE TE

Global

Project team TE COMM n = 86

COHESION BACKGROUND LINKS CHOICE

0.000 0.037 ns

0.000 0.020 ns

0.000 ns ns 0.000 ns ns ns

0.000 ns ns ns

0.000 ns ns ns

NB: Figures correspond to the probability of the null hypothesis. The lower the probability (particularly when under 0.05), the stronger the componentÕs influence on communication. ns: non significant.

based than founded in communication. In this context, it is reasonable to think of trust more as a variable that can explain communication than the reverse. 7 Nominal logistic regressions were conducted to find relationships between the quality of communication and interpersonal relationship components identified in Section 4.1. Nominal regression requires a minimum of respondents in the classes of variables retained. We finally re-coded the quality of communication (1, 2, 3) before proceeding. Score 3 represented very good communication; score 2, satisfactory communication and score 1 was reserved for a communication ‘‘failure’’. As usual the score 3 (i.e. for the dependent variable the coordinator strongly agrees that his communication with his or her stakeholder is very good) acts as the omitted score and thus acts as a reference in the statistical analysis. 8 Results are seen in Table 1. 7 However we were able to show that the statements ‘‘My task manager has confidence in me’’ and ‘‘My national supervisor has confidence in me’’ are strongly linked to ‘‘We have common values’’ and ‘‘We have a relationship of mutual respect.’’ Hence recognizing anotherÕs values requires the passage of time and communication. We could therefore conclude that knowledge-based trust plays a part in total trust. It is very possible that our dataÕs basic unit for the variable time, a year, is too long to capture the establishment dynamic of knowledge-based trust through communication, a phenomenon that would undoubtedly occur in the first months of a project. 8 The distribution across groups 1, 2 and 3 is not, however, homogeneous. Groups (1) that correspond to a lack of communication between stakeholders are under-represented (about 20% of the total population). It should be noted that it was the communication within the team that was the least likely to be rated ‘‘very good.’’ This should not come as a surprise; there are in effect many members on a team, and it only takes one of them holding back information to erode the quality of communication across the team.

These results lead to the following observations: 1. The pseudo R2 are high. The degree of correlation between trust and communication leads us to conclude that they are proxy variables (proving Assertion 1). Here we are assuming that trust is a factor of good communication, but the literature suggests that knowledge-based trust results from communication (Assertion 2, to be tested below). 2. The overall quality of communication between the coordinator and his or her task manager (TM COMM) is explained primarily by the task managerÕs trust in the coordinator (TMTRUST) and (although to a lesser extent) by how frequently the task manager comes to visit the project implementation unit (TM VISITS CR). The importance of TM TRUST confirms that it is a determining factor, but the coordinatorsÕ visits to the offices of the funding institution (CR VISITS TM) had no significant effect on the quality of communication. 3. The same can be said for the quality of communication between coordinators and their national supervisor (NS COMM). The strength of this link is even stronger than that with the task manager, although this does not appear in Table 1 because we only calculated the probability of the null hypothesis to three decimal places. It is interesting to note that a good friendship (NS FRIENDSHIP) excludes the possibility of a complete lack of communication (3–1 is significant). Nevertheless the fact that a coordinator and his or her national supervisor are good friends and are approximately the same age does not automatically imply that they communicate very well (3– 2 is non significant). Finally, belonging to the same cultural community (NS CULTURE) does not appear to have a significant effect on communication.

246

A. Diallo, D. Thuillier / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 237–252

in the extreme case (from 3 to 1). It is interesting to note that communication would appear to more readily explain project SUCCESS (see below) than the MANAGEMENT criteria specifically (although the coordinator believes that), among the three criteria of success (as drawn from the project coordinatorÕs understanding), MANAGEMENT is the one that best explains the success of the project (see note 3 Section 5). Communication between the coordinator and the task manager should therefore explain the project PROFILE variable, another important success criteria as perceived by the coordinator. As we will see this proves to be true. 3. The PROFILE criteria TM COMM and, to a lesser extent, TE COMM are linked to the projectÕs visibility. This is understandable. On the other hand, no significant relationship was found between project PROFILE and NS COMM, which is surprising, considering the role that a hierarchy can play in the political amplification of project achievements. But the VISIBILITY variable is made up of an ‘‘internal’’ or national visibility and an ‘‘external’’ visibility with respect to the donor agency (see Section 6.1). Non-parametric correlations showed that internal visibility is explained by the quality of communication with the task manager or the fact that the task manager often visits the project, more than it is explained by the quality of communication with the national supervisor. Communication with the minister or department director would therefore appear to have little impact on the projectÕs internal or overall visibility. Nevertheless it is true that if the quality of communication does not play a decisive role, this does not mean that the quality of the relationship between the coordinator and his or her national supervisor does not have an effect on the PROFILE variable. The possibility to secure eventually additional funding for the project (ADDFUND is one of the three components of PROFILE) is closely linked to the climate of trust and the correlative autonomy that the minister grants the project coordinator and the support shown by the minister for the coordinator and the project. The

4. The quality of communication within the project team (TE COMM) appears to be linked only to cohesion (TE COHESION), which confirms what we already knew and justifies any efforts needed to secure team building at the outset of a project. We did not specifically introduce the concept of trust as a specific statement when describing relationships within the project team. Nevertheless, it is clear that there can be no cohesion in a team without trust between its members, and that cohesion is a good proxy variable when trust is not explicitly specified.

6.3. Communication, project success and success criteria Interpersonal factors explain the quality of communication between actors, and the quality of communication between actors determines some aspects of project success, whether it is the projectÕs success or some of its criteria. We ran nominal logistic regressions to assess the influence of the quality of communication on success or success criteria. The results are shown in Table 2. The following observations can be made: 1. The project SUCCESS In general terms, a statistically significant link was found between the success of the project and the quality of communication between the coordinator and the task manager. A slightly less significant link was found between success and the quality of communication among members of the project team. The quality of communication between coordinators and their national supervisor does not appear a key factor. This is not surprising, since the organisational context of aid projects is such that the coordinator–national supervisor professional relationship is more based on functional responsibilities than operational concerns. 2. The MANAGEMENT criteria The quality of communication between actors did not have a significant effect on the MANAGEMENT criteria, but TM COMM and TE COMM were both very close to the threshold of statistical significance

Table 2 Communication, project success and the success criteria

Pseudo R2 (Cox and Snell)

SUCCESS n = 77 0.279

MANAGEMENT n = 85 0.133

PROFILE n = 85 0.341

IMPACT n = 85 0.307

1

Global

2

1

Global

2

1

Global

2

1

Global

2

TM COMM NS COMM TE COMM

0.003 0.175 0.046

0.002 0.331 0.083

0.567 0.260 0.103

0.106 0.167 0.109

0.198 0.276 0.214

0.448 0.147 0.441

0.000 0.533 0.031

0.000 0.797 0.074

0.139 0.906 0.306

0.092 0.161 0.005

0.096 0.000 0.009

(0.664) 0.001 0.186

NB: Figures correspond to the probability of a null hypothesis. The lower the probability (particularly when under 0.05), the stronger the componentÕs success or success criteria.

A. Diallo, D. Thuillier / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 237–252

non-parametric correlations clearly show that funding of project subsequent phases is conditional upon coordinator autonomy. Task managers give up when the project coordinators face excessive control or pressure from their local hierarchy. 4. The IMPACT criteria Communication between actors is a significant factor of project IMPACT. This result is difficult to interpret, given that these are medium- and long-term impacts. IMPACT is made up of components 9 upon which the quality of communication between actors would appear to have little effect. We have some difficulty explaining this result.

6.4. The interpersonal relationships, the project success and success criteria Intuitively we know that the interpersonal relationships between stakeholders have an influence on the projectÕs ultimate success. This is clearly documented in the literature (see Section 4). We conducted nominal regressions of success criteria (MANAGEMENT, VISIBILITY and IMPACT) and of the SUCCESS itself 10 on factors of the stakeholder-to-stakeholder relationship, and retained only those factors that were significant in these regressions. Then we estimated a model that only specified those significant factors as explanatory variables for each success criteria and for the success itself. 1. The MANAGEMENT criteria Generally speaking, trust between the task manager and the coordinator (TMTRUST) and team cohesion (TE COHESION) are significant factors of project management performance. A high level of trust between the coordinator and the task manager makes a serious project management failure unlikely (thus explaining project success). However, the more often the coordinator visits the task manager or the funding agency headquarters, the poorer the project management. Poor project management (MANAGEMENT from 3 to 1) in particular is very strongly associated with frequent coordinators visits. One could expect the opposite to be true. It would appear that the cause-and-effect link for visits must be analysed differently according to their meaning: visits by the task manager, even though they did not have a significant effect on the MANAGEMENT variable, have a beneficial effect. It is worth noting that TM 9

IMPACT is a function of SUSTAIN (the project built institutional capacity), IMPACT (the project has a visible impact on the beneficiaries) and BENSATIS (beneficiaries are satisfied). See [26]. 10 As in the previous section, we re-coded the dependent variables, or SUCCESS and its criteria, on (1, 2, 3).

247

VISITS CR explains communication between both (see Section 6.3), while the coordinator could be visiting the donor agency because the task manager called a meeting to fix a management problem. Hence the phenomenon appears especially significant when it involves a critical management issue (from 3 to 1) and not minor problems (from 3 to 2). Again, remember that CR VISITS TM does not improve their communication, which is consistent with this result, see Section 6.3. 2. The PROFILE criteria Generally speaking, the analysis shows that visits by the task manager (TM VISITS CR), the task managerÕs trust in the coordinator (TM TRUST) and the national supervisorÕs trust (NS TRUST) have positive effects on the project PROFILE The significance of other variables is weak. More specifically, the task managerÕs trust, frequent visits to the project, and the national supervisorÕs trust in the coordinator make poor visibility unlikely, i.e. they play a fundamental role in explaining a projectÕs high PROFILE. We found factors that explained successful project management (see above). But it is interesting to see the effect a national supervisorÕs trust can have on the ‘‘surface’’ of the project. Earlier we saw that the national supervisorÕs trust, like the coordinatorÕs autonomy, is indispensable in securing subsequent funding; multilateral institutions are not fond of dealing with situations that are complicated or clouded with local power struggles. Cultural affinities between the coordinator and his or her national supervisor appear to have a negative impact on project PROFILE, and very close cultural ties between these actors have an even more important effect on the probability of the projectÕs relative visibility (from 3 to 2). This result was not expected, and we have not found a satisfactory explanation. 3. The IMPACT criteria The IMPACT is explained by team cohesion, the national supervisorÕs trust (local factors) and to a lesser extent by the task managerÕs trust. However, the influence of interpersonal factors on IMPACT is not a direct one, as IMPACT is not exactly an ‘‘operational construct’’. Some caution is required therefore in interpreting potential meanings. 4. The project SUCCESS The projects success factors are: the team cohesion, the task managerÕs trust (TM TRUST) and the makeup of the team (TE CHOICE), which has a negative effect. We did not expect that when coordinators participate in the selection of their collaborators and/or project team, including the possibility to hire contractual employees (team members who are not civil servants), it would have a negative effect on project success. This component affects project SUCCESS but surprisingly is not a factor of any success criteria. We

248

A. Diallo, D. Thuillier / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 237–252

tested for causality between TE COHESION and TM CHOICE, thinking that differences in salary or behaviour between the two groups might lead to tensions or conflicts in the team, but no evidence was found. TM CHOICE is not affecting the quality of communication within the team, either. It is unlikely that the coordinator would support hiring incompetent contractual employees, even though we know that contractual employees are sometimes not always hired only on the basis of their competencies. This is therefore a phenomenon that cannot be explained at this time, given the information in this database.

6.5. Summary A number of results emerged as significant. They are summarised here in the same order as our research questions and/or assertions were presented at the end of Section 4: (a) Trust, which in this case is a construct made up of elements such as trust stricto sensu, delegated autonomy, and reliable behaviour, constitutes the overriding factor in the coordinatorÕs relationships with the task manager and the national supervisor. Team cohesion (which presumes a climate of trust) characterises relationships between team members. (b) Communication between the coordinator and his or her task manager is closely linked to the trust the task manager has in the coordinator, and to the task managerÕs visits to project members. The ministerÕs or national supervisorÕs trust of the coordinator is indispensable for good communication, and good communication will in turn reinforce social links. The link between team cohesion and the communication between its members is a decisive factor. The empirical results confirm Assertion 1 (trust–communication–autonomy are virtually interchangeable) but we were unable to confirm Assertion 2 (see Section 4): with this data it is in fact impossible to isolate the building of trust over time in such a way that the key role of communication as a factor of trust between the coordinator and project stakeholders can be confirmed. (c) Project success factors are: good communication between the coordinator and his or her task manager and good communication among team members. Communication between the coordinator and the national supervisor does not appear to play a significant role. The relationship between project management and the quality of communication between actors (no matter which actors) does not appear to be significant in this regard. On the

other hand, the trust a task manager has in the coordinator plays a larger role in project success, on the quality of project management, and on project visibility than does cohesion within the team. We have shown that project profile depends on the trust established between the coordinator and the task manager, but trust between the coordinator and the national supervisor is a must for an eventual extension of a project. Task managers in the multilateral agency appreciate a project that is running smoothly. Too much intervention or local power struggles in a project clearly result in the donor pulling out. This confirms what can be observed in actual international development projects. Cohesion in the project team, which cannot occur without relationships of trust among its members (established beforehand or over time), remains the only ‘‘soft’’ factor that can make a contribution (along with a trusting relationship with the task manager) to the success of projects. Pre-existing friendships established at college or shared cultural backgrounds, phenomena that we would have considered significant, seem to have little effect. It is therefore the coordinator–task manager relationship that is decisive, and to a lesser extent, the interpersonal relationships within the project team. The authors of this research, who have a fair amount of experience in ID project management, welcome such confirmation. The sheer strength of the statistical evidence is compelling and confirms Assertions 3 and 4 (see Section 4). This carries a number of ramifications. In fact, it is not uncommon for a multilateral institution to transfer a task manager to another region, interrupting the continuity of projects. Considerable damage can result if the new task manager and the project coordinator are not able to quickly establish an adequate level of trust. The authors have seen that such transfers can quickly terminate projects that were working smoothly. We have also seen the opposite; a radical revival of a project, particularly where the relationship with the former task manager was difficult. Appropriate measures are not taken to create, consolidate or improve social cohesion or trust in the project team. This nevertheless appears to be instrumental to a projectÕs success; nothing is possible without a wellintegrated team. Some institutions hold launching seminars, but it would be worthwhile for them to take the time and set aside the funds (which would not be inordinate, particularly at the beginning) to create a climate of trust within each new project team. It is clear that the team is important enough to deserve more attention; at least this is one of the conclusions suggested by the empirical analysis.

A. Diallo, D. Thuillier / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 237–252

249

Table 3 The components of stakeholder interpersonal relationships as factors of the project success and success criteria

Pseudo R2 (Cox and Snell)

SUCCESS n = 77 0.279

MANAGEMENT n = 85 0. 204

PROFILE n = 85 0.403

IMPACT n = 85 0.307

1

Global

2

1

Global

2

1

Global

2

1

Global

2

TM TRUST CR VISITS TM TM VISITS CR NS TRUST NS FRIENDSHIP NS CULTURE TE COHESION TE BACKGROUND TE LINKS TE CHOICE

0.006 – – 0.225 – – 0.053 – – (0.008)

0.007 – – 0.457 – – 0.069 – – (0.023)

0.608 – – 0.425 – – 0.078 – – (0.012)

0.007 (0.029) – – – – 0.280 – – –

0.010 (0.075) – – – – 0.052 – – –

0. 036 (0.211) – – – – (0.448) – – –

0.010 – 0.039 0.036 – (0.122) 0.150 – – –

0.018 – 0.034 0.087 – (0.083) 0.308 – – –

0.109 – (0.998) 0.162 – (0.050) 0.228 – – –

0.042 – – 0.295 – – 0.058 – – –

0.100 – – 0.013 – – 0.068 – – –

0.097 – – 0.010 – – (0.950) – – –

NB: Figures correspond to the probability of the null hypothesis. The lower the probability (particularly when under 0.05), the stronger the componentÕs influence on success or success criteria.

6.5.1. The limitations of the results The studyÕs potential biases and limits were described in Section 5. We do not believe that these issues affect generalisation of our results. However, there was a specification bias when estimating parameter significance in our models. We limited the specification to interpersonal relationships and communication variables, and we cannot be certain that those factors explain close to 30% of the success of ID projects, like the pseudo R2 might lead one to believe (see Table 3). The specification of other variables (such as the age of the coordinator, which is strongly related to the success of ID projects) could affect our estimates and therefore the importance of some relational and communication variables. However, the goal was not to build a good predictive model of ID project success but to establish a hierarchy of significance between variables. In this context, the specification bias has little effect on our results. 11

7. Conclusion We have tried to describe and assess the influence of different aspects of interpersonal relations between key actors in order to explain the success of international development projects in sub-Saharan Africa. The re11 Furthermore, independent of the fact that the models are incomplete, the limited number of cases by group (once recoded with 1, 2, 3) and the unequal distribution of cases among the three groups could have had an impact on the accuracy of the estimates when three or more variables were introduced. We therefore recalculated the estimates in Table 3 with ten random sub-samples each representing two-thirds of the total population. Even though there was some instability among the less important variables, the overall estimates regularly reproduced the hierarchy of significance shown in Table 3. This makes us believe that what we have learned would appear to be valid for the entire population of development projects funded by the multilateral system in sub-Saharan Africa.

search did not provided answers to all the questions we raised, but our analysis has lead to some conclusions that are well supported by the statistical evidence. The findings pertaining to the ‘‘interpersonal relationship-communication-success’’ causality are in complete accordance with what is known from the body of research on work groups or project teams. Projects are dynamic systems in which perceptions become ‘‘reality’’. They cannot be carried out efficiently without trust between key stakeholders. This is also consistent with the legacy of the literature on group dynamics. Trust and communication are inseparable, and in international development, they are critical factors of project success. Research also shows that the climate (atmosphere) within the project team is decisive, and therefore, that making more efforts in team building during the first months of the project is recommended. The launching seminars organized by the donor agencies focus more on ‘‘selling’’ the new projects to the local stakeholders rather than creating a good working climate within the team. The specific project team management and project team building seminars should be organized as soon as the project team is set up. The relationship coordinator–task manager becomes fundamental (even more than the relationship coordinator– national supervisor or task manager–national supervisor) and the quality of this relationship is directly linked to the numerous on-site work related visits made by the task manager to the coordinator. Despite the progress of electronic communication, the semi-virtual ID project management teams cannot avoid the ‘‘physical’’ contact and face-to-face communication. The on-site meetings are especially the ones that help establish trust. Multilateral donor agencies should assess regularly the trust climate, project by project, between the task manager and the coordinator. Because it would be a loss to break a ‘‘winning team’’, one must avoid

250

A. Diallo, D. Thuillier / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 237–252

Appendix A. Sample description: projects and project coordinators

Sectors: (n = 89) Education Energy Environment Mining

% 12.4 3.4 9.0 2.2

Rural development Urban development Public works Social development

% 19.1 3.4 6.7 9.0

Reform, governance Pop., health and nutr. Comm. And telecomm. Agetipea

% 11.2 5.6 2.2 15.7

Contributions by donors: (n = 83), (millions of US$) Total per World Bank project

ABD

European Union

UNDP

Other

GovÕt

n Mean Median Mode Minimum Maximum

86 36.08 16.70 5.00 0.06 600.00

61 25.94 19.00 4.10 0.00 120.00

23 9.50 2.00 0.00 0.00 60.00

17 9.78 2.50 0.00 0.00 90.00

23 1.82 0.30 0.00 0.00 15.00

36 15.60 5.50 0.00 0.00 250.00

63 7.75 2.00 2.00 0.00 100.00

Project coordinators: Sex (n = 91) Country (n = 92) Education (n = 91) Professional status (n = 91)

Male: Francophone: Undergraduate: Civil servant:

89% 65% 13% 33%

11% 35% 87% 27%

Contractual.:

34%

Female: Anglophone: Graduate: Seconded civil servant: Other:

2500–5000 17.4

5000–7500 10.9

7500–10,000 8.7

Salary and benefits (n = 89): (US$ equivalent) <2500 % 26.1 a

6%

>10,000 33.7

Agency managing mostly construction projects (Agence dÕ Exe´cution des Travaux dÕ Inte´reˆt Public).

transferring the task managers who have already established a relationship based on mutual trust with their coordinators. The study does not come to any conclusions of a comparative nature, and does not reveal behaviours specific to African managers as compared to Europeans or North Americans. This was not our goal. This research could be extended to Central and Latin America, Central Europe, Asia and Indonesia, where multilateral development agencies and bilateral organisations fund numerous development projects. We plan on pursuing this further, since databases are currently being assembled on these projects. A transcultural analysis of the empirical results from a larger survey would allow us to confirm the results from the African data and perhaps even to discover cultural differences in the importance of interpersonal and communication factors.

Appendix B. Statements describing relationships between stakeholders

Relationship Coordinator–task manager My task manager came to visit me frequently. I visited my task manager frequently. My task manager gave me autonomy. My task manager had confidence in me. We have common values. We are approximately the same age. My task manager understands my local constraints. I obtained rapid approval from my task manager on important matters. We have a relationship of mutual respect. My task manager visited my home on occasion. I know the family of my task manager.

Abbreviation TM VISITS CR CR VISITS TM TM AUTONOMY TM TRUST TM VALUES TM AGE TM UNDERSTANDING TM RELIABLE TM RESPECT TM IN MY HOME TM FAMILY

Acknowledgements We communicate well

The authors would like to thank the company SETYM International Inc. (Montreal, Quebec, Canada) for offering the use of its database of project managers, coordinators and directors of projects financed by international organizations in Africa.

Coordinator–national supervisor My national supervisor came to visit me frequently. I visited my national supervisor frequently at the Ministry.

TM COMM

NS VISITS CR CR VISITS NS

A. Diallo, D. Thuillier / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 237–252

Appendix B (continued) Relationship

Abbreviation

I regularly informed my national supervisor about the project My national supervisor gave me autonomy. My national supervisor had confidence in me. We did part of our studies together. We are approximately the same age. We share a common language apart from French or English. We have common values I get rapid approval from my national supervisor on important matters. We have a relation of mutual respect. My national supervisor came to my home on occasion. I know my national supervisorÕs family. My national supervisor helped when I experienced problems.

NS INFORMED

We communicate well Within the project team The team members knew each other for several years. I have known them for several years. I participated in the choice of my team members. On the team there were one or more private contractors. My team bonded. There was no rivalries among them. There was little absenteeism in the team. The working ambance was excellent. The team functionned well without me. Team members participed in social events together. They met at their home. Everyone was concerned about the success of the project. Information circulated well within the team

NS AUTONOMY NS TRUST STUDIES NS AGE LANGUAGE NS VALUES NS RELIABLE NS RESPECT NS IN MY HOME NS FAMILY NS SUPPORT

NS COMM

KNOW EACH OTHER CR KNOWS THEM CHOICE CONTRACTUAL MUTUAL AID NO RIVALRIES NO ABSENTEEISM ATMOSPHERE TE AUTONOMY TE SOLIDARITY TE FAMILY MOTIVATION

TE COMM

References [1] Ravaillon M, Gaurav D, Van de Walle D. Quantifying absolute poverty in the developing world. Rev Income Wealth 1991;37:343–61. [2] Collier P, Dollar D. Aid allocation and poverty reduction. Policy Research Working Paper (2041) World Bank, Washington, DC, 1999. [3] Collier P, Dollar D. Can the world cut poverty in half? How policy reform and effective aid can meet the international development goals. Policy Research Working Paper (2403) World Bank, Washington, DC, 2001. [4] Deaton A. Counting the worldÕs poor: problems and possible solutions. The World Bank Res Obser 2002;16(2):125–47. [5] The World Bank. World development indicators. The World Bank Publications. Washington, DC, 2004. [6] Lucas RE. On the mechanics of economic development. J Monetary Econ 1988;22:03–22. [7] Meier GM, Stiglitz E. Frontiers in development economics: the future in perspective. Washington DC: Oxford University Press and the World Bank; 2001.

251

[8] Youker R. The nature of international development projects. Paper for presentation at PMI Conference, Baltimore, 2003. [9] Dia M. Development and cultural values in sub-Saharan Africa. Finance Dev 1991;28(4):10–3. [10] Muriithi N, Crawford L. Approaches to project management in Africa: implications for international development projects. Int J Project Manage 2003;21:309–19. [11] Cooke-Davis T. The real success factors on projects. Int J Project Manage 2002;20:185–90. [12] Baccarini D. The logical framework method for defining project success. Project Manage J 1999;30(4):25–32. [13] Munns AK, Bjeirmi BF. The role of project management in achieving project success. Int J Project Manage 1996;14(2):81–7. [14] Stukenbruck L. Who determines project success? PMI Annual Symposium, Montre´al 1986:85–93. [15] Lipovetsky S. The relative importance of project success dimensions. R&D Manage 1997;27(2):97–106. [16] Wideman RM. How to motivate «stakeholders» to work together. In: Cleland DI, editor. Field guide to project management. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1998. p. 212–6. [17] Slevin DP, Pinto JK. The project implementation profile: new tool for project managers. Project Manage J 1986;17(4):57–70. [18] Baker BN, Murphy DC, Fisher D. Factors affecting project success. In: Cleland DI, King WR, editors. Project Management Handbook. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1988. [19] Pinto JK, Slevin DP. Project success: Definitions and measurement techniques. Project Manage J 1988;19(1):67–72. [20] Pinto JK, Slevin DP. Critical success factors across the project life cycle. Project Manage J 1988;19(3):67–74. [21] Freeman M, Beale P. Measuring project success. Project Manage J 1992;23(1):8–17. [22] Wateridge J. How can IS/IT projects be measured for success? Int J Project Manage 1997;16(1):59–63. [23] Shenar AJ, Levy O, Dvir D. Mapping the dimensions of project success. Project Manage J 1997;28(2):5–13. [24] Lim CS, Zain MM. Criteria of project success: An explanatory reexamination. Int J Project Manage 1999;17(4):243–8. [25] Westerweld E. The project excellence model: linking success criteria and success factors. Int J Project Manage 2003;21:411–8. [26] Diallo A, Thuillier D. The dimensions of success for international development projects: the perceptions of African project coordinators. Int J Project Manage 2004;22:19–31. [27] Jack W. Social Investment Funds: An organisational approach to improve development assistance. The World Bank Res Obser 2001;16(1):109–24. [28] Alderfer CP. Group and intergroup relations. In: Hackmann JR, Suttle JL, editors. Improving life at work. Santa Monica: Goodyear; 1977. [29] Hackman JR. The design of work groups. In: Lorsch JW, editor. Handbook of organizational behaviour. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall; 1987. p. 315–42. [30] McGrath JE. Studying groups at work: ten critical needs for theory and practice. In: Goodman PS and associates, editors. Designing effective workgroups. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass; 1986. [31] Guzzo RA, Shea GP. Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In: Dunnette MD, Hough LM, editors. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 3. Palo-Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1992. p. 269–313. [32] Savoie A, Beaudin G. Les e´quipes de travail, que faut-il en connaıˆtre? Psychologie du travail et des organisations 1995;1(2–3):116–34. [33] Guzzo RA, Dickson MW. Teams in organizations: recent research in performance and effectiveness. Annu Rev Psychol 1996;47:307–38.

252

A. Diallo, D. Thuillier / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 237–252

[34] Hoffman EJ, Kinlaw CS, Kinlaw DC. Developing superior project teams: a study of the characteristics of high performance in project teams. Proceedings of the PMI Research Conference 2000:29–35. [35] Thamhain HJ, Wilemon DL. Conflict management in project life cycles. Sloan Manage Rev 1975:31–50. [36] Thamhain HJ, Wilemon DL. Building high performing engineering project teams. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 1987;EM 34(3):130–7. [37] Wilemon DL, Thamain HJ. Team building in project management. Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Conference 1979:373–80. [38] Thamain HJ. Team building in project management. In: Cleland D, King W, editors. Project Management Handbook. NewYork: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1988. p. 823–46. [39] Katzenbach JR, Smith DK. The wisdom of teams: Creating the high performance organization. Boston: Harvard Business School Press; 1993. [40] Nurick AJ. Facilitating effective work groups. Adv Manage J 1993;58(1):22–6. [41] Thamhain HJ, Gemill GR. Influence styles of project manager: Some project performance correlates. Acad Manage J 1974;17:216–24. [42] Elmes M, Wilemon DL. Organizational culture and project leader effectiveness. Project Manage J 1988;19(4):54–62. [43] Zimmerer T. A leadership profile of American project managers. Project Manage J 1998;29(1):31–7. [44] Katz R. The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Sci Quart 1982;27:104–81. [45] Hartman FT. The role of trust in project management. Proceedings of the PMI Research Conference 1999. [46] Zaghloul R, Hartman FT. Construction contracts: The cost of mistrust. Proceedings of the IRNOP V Conference 2002. [47] Deutsch M. Trust and suspicion. J Conflict Resolut 1958;2:265–79. [48] Zand DE. Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Sci Quart 1972;17:229–39. [49] Gambetta D. Can we trust trust? In: Gambetta D, editor. Trust: making and breaking cooperative relations. Basil: Blakwell; 1988. p. 213–38. [50] Hosmer LRT. Trust: the connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Acad Manage Rev 1995:379–403.

[51] Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD. An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manage Rev 1995;20:709–34. [52] Lewicki RJ, McAllister DJ, Bies RJ. Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Acad Manage Rev 1998;23(3):438–58. [53] Blau PM. Exchange and power in social life. New-York: Wiley; 1964. [54] Coase R. The nature of the firm. Economica 1937:386–405. [55] Williamson OE. The economics of organization: the transaction cost approach. Am J Sociol 1981;87:548–77. [56] Williamson OE. Calculativeness, trust and economic organization. J Law Econ 1993;36(1):453–86. [57] Beccerra M, Gupta AK. Trust within the organization: Integrating the trust literature with agency theory and transaction costs economics. Public Administ Quart 1999;23(2):177–203. [58] McAllister DJ. Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Acad Manage J 1995;38:24–59. [59] Williams M. In whom we trust: Group membership as an effective context for trust development. Acad Manage Rev 2001;26(3):377–96. [60] Jones GR, George JM. The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Acad Manage Rev 1998;23(3):531–46. [61] Ring PS, Van de Ven AH. Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations. Strategic Manage J 1992;12:483–98. [62] Ring PS, Van de Ven AH. Developmental process of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Acad Manage Rev 1994;19(1):90–118. [63] Victor B, Cullen JB. The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative Sci Quart 1988;33(1):101–25. [64] Butler JK. Towards understanding and measuring condition of trust: Evolution of a condition of trust inventory. J Manage 1991;17:643–63. [65] Butler JK, Cantrell RS. Communication factors and trust: An exploratory study. Psychol Rep 1994;74:33–4. [66] Lewicki RJ, Bunker BB. Developing and maintaining trust in working relationships. In: Kramer RM, editor. Trust in organizations: frontiers of theory and research. London: Sage; 1996. p. 114–39. [67] Ruppel CP, Harrington SJ. The relationship of communication, ethical work climate, and trust to commitment and innovation. J Business Ethics 2000;25(4):313–28.