Environments), Agile Project Management, the Asia Pacific. Federation of Project .... Methodology is based on PMI's A Guide to the Project Management Body of.
JPMA-01905; No of Pages 14
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect International Journal of Project Management xx (2016) xxx – xxx www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman
Community and post-disaster Program Management Methodology Paul Steinfort PSA Project Management, Australia RMIT University, Australia Wind of Change International, Australia Received 3 April 2016; received in revised form 2 July 2016; accepted 12 July 2016
Abstract The challenge for personnel in disaster situations is that there has been very limited effective Program or Project Management (PPM) methodology, education or training provided to plan and implement Programs of Projects that will deliver sustainable value for stakeholders following a disaster. Based on extensive program management research and practice, this paper addresses a context driven, flexible but robustly practical approach to Program and Project Management methodology and education. Current Program Management training is a one size fits all approach based on Project practices and methodologies which do not integrate effectively with Project Management or cater for the largely unpredictable or high risk situation, such as a disaster. This paper reviews • A practical process for assessing, planning and delivering best value outcomes for Programs and Projects. • The PSA Project process which can be integrated into any Project methodology through the working Scope within an effective Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) process by engaging key stakeholder values to enable sustainable Program results.. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Projects may be the vehicles for delivering defined value. In traditional project management, governance structures such as Project Boards and Program Offices define the broad scope of the intended project together with the expected benefits for the investment made. However, in a community or post-disaster situation, there is a compression of responsibilities whereby traditional Project Management is combined with Program responsibilities. It is as if the Project Manager has to also assume the role of Program Manager at the same time. This then poses the first challenge to traditional Project Management in community and post-disaster situations can a project manager work effectively as a program manager? The second challenge is simply addressing the question of whose and what needs are required to be fulfilled. In a
post-disaster context, understanding the ‘messy situation’ with the range of stakeholders, their priorities and delivering value in precisely the way each of these stakeholders expect, presents a substantial challenge. Often the perception and needs of those who fund reconstruction appear to have a greater influence than the pressing needs of those who are ostensibly the beneficiaries of the project. Can the program or project manager have the confidence and interpersonal skills to be able to work collaboratively as well as the empathy to stand in each of the stakeholder's shoes in order to elicit stakeholder needs and responses? The third challenge is the Project Management framework or methodology to be used. Program and Project Management methodologies have developed significantly over the past 45 years and are still developing in theory and practice (praxis). The core of Program
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.07.005 0263-7863/00 © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved. Please cite this article as: P. Steinfort, 2016. Community and post-disaster Program Management Methodology, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijproman.2016.07.005
2
P. Steinfort / International Journal of Project Management xx (2016) xxx–xxx
Management is the realisation of Benefits/Return on Investment for the Key Stakeholders, whilst the core of Project Management is the delivery on time, budget, to value and within risk profiles. Programs are typically whole of life cycle ongoing developments whereas projects are unique and have a start and finish. There are a large array of Project Management publications, qualifications, and differing types of delivery through a range of methodology. Program Management is not as well expanded yet, but is being better researched and developed in its need to bring together benefits not otherwise realisable by individual projects. There is also a significant gap remaining in understanding, knowledge and application in the integration of Program and Project Management to achieve the best value/impact outcomes at the least cost and time and to requirements and especially in high risk environments. The Project Management Institute (PMI), has leading publications and large followings on both the Project Management Body of Knowledge v5 (PMBOK) (PMI, 2013a) and the Standard for Program Management v3 (SPM) (PMI, 2013b). There is an interesting gap in the direct working of Program to Project Management within and between these two leading publications. The PMI also has a Project Management Competency Development Framework (PMI PMCDF) (PMI, 2007b) which is a reputable publication in itself, as are all of the above in themselves, but admits to being yet to publish a relevant Program Management Competency Development Framework. The competencies for Program Management are quite different in common application and understanding to those for Project Management. This can be seen by the sort of key issues addressed in the PMBOK and the SPM and also more insight given into it in recent papers such as the Ten Core Competencies of Program Managers (Sohmen and D. C. K. D, 2015). There is not only a marked difference in the application of Program and Project Management between such documents, but, more significantly, there is a real issue in general application in the need to be able to understand and apply Program and Project Management together and have effective working between the two. Most Projects these days exist within a Program setting and most Programs rely for their outcome through delivery by Project Management. The key benefits realisation criteria need to be translated to a scope/work breakdown structure which can then be delivered and measured through standard project management delivery. Program Management quite often has both tangible and intangible (soft and hard/human and material) target outcomes and these need to be clearly translated into measurable deliverables through Project Management. There are other world leading publications on Program and Project Management including from the International Project Management Association (IPMA), the Association for Project Management (APM), PRINCE 2 (Project In Controlled Environments), Agile Project Management, the Asia Pacific Federation of Project Management, the Australian Institute of Project Management (AIPM), Accrediting Project Managers
Globally (APMG) and Project Management for Development Organisations (PM4Dev) amongst others. Some of these organisations provide Program to Project Management methodology, but there is presently little agreement between these various groups on the core essentials of such. Two of the latter qualifying organisations provide also Program/Project Management for the International Development Sector (Steinfort and Walker, 2011). Here exists a significant challenge for the Project Management and Program Management world and, in particular, their various organisations. Will they individually, or together, arrive at some sort of standard practices that can be applied effectively and universally to the very large need for Program to Project Management integration globally in differing sectors and in this case, disaster, resilience and climate change Programs? The international development sector has traditionally applied Program to Project Management from the outset to the front end. The Logical Framework (Logframe) (USAID (1973) The logical framework: modifications based on experience, Baccarini, 1999; AUSAID, 2005; Speckley, 2004) was first used in 1969 which, coincidentally, is the same year as the PMI was founded. This process was further developed to Program Cycle Management (PCM) (Speckley, 2004) then Results Based Management (RBM)(Comparison of the European Commission's project cycle management) and other iterations of the Logframe/ Theory of Change chain of input, output, outcome and impact. Notable organisations such as the United Nations (UN), the World Bank, the European Union (EU), the Asian Development Bank and a whole long list of Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) such as Red Cross, World Vision, Save the Children, International Organisation for Migration and a plethora more work in this frame (Anon, 2004; UNDP (2002) Handbook on Monitoring and Evaluating for Results, Cooke-Davies, 2009; Maylor et al., 2006; Cracknell, 2000). There has been some serious work done to integrate these two worlds of Program to Project Management (PPM), but there remain significant gaps in the relating and effective working together of these in the main frames outlined above. Certainly, when it comes to pre- and post-disaster community response, recovery and sustainable redevelopment, this lack of agreement or co-ordination in method, language and due process is the most significant factor in not enabling effective PPM being used globally. Program Management methodology, education and training should provide personnel with the skills and knowledge to design, plan, implement and deliver Programs of Projects(Belassi and Tukel, 1996; Cicmil et al., 2006; Crawford et al., 2003; Crawford et al., 2006; Crawford and Bryce, 2003). 2. Overview — significant gaps in the theory and practice of Program to Project Management The world's largest project management institute (PMI) notes that “Programs are comprised of various components, the majority of these being the individual Projects within the Program”(PMI, 2013b). This PMI Standard for Program Management 3rd Edition (PMI SPM) was published in 2013 and improves upon the
Please cite this article as: P. Steinfort, 2016. Community and post-disaster Program Management Methodology, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijproman.2016.07.005
P. Steinfort / International Journal of Project Management xx (2016) xxx–xxx
presentation of the Program Management process to a great extent. However, it could not be stated that it has the engagement of the other key institutes mentioned previously in the application or take up in their own realms of those processes. Nor could it be agreed that this publication enables project managers sufficient process to be able to take this work into the field and apply it effectively, efficiently or with due confidence. As previously outlined, Projects can be vehicles for delivering a specifically defined value and we need to be able to deliver Programs of Projects to realise benefits. However, currently there is no shared agreement on how to translate single Project Management knowledge to efficient Program management (Gorog, 2011). The article “Ten Core Competencies of Program Managers: An empirical study” (Sohmen and D. C. K. D, 2015) counts competencies necessary for Program Management, amongst others; Leadership and Teamwork, Communication, Ethics and Ethical Values, Political Understanding, Knowledge Management, Financial Management, Risk Management, and lastly Project Management, as competencies necessary for Program Management. Is it possible to translate project management knowledge into project programs or equally translate program management into project management in actual competent working? Gorog writes that it is possible to and to consider and apply scope-related and resource-related single project management tools at the program level (Gorog, 2011), program scope definition of the expected result, the Program resource allocation and the associated scheduling, all of which have considerable importance from the point of view of knowledge transfer. It is well recognised that the management of multiple projects creates a set of issues which goes beyond the problems associated with the management of single projects. Gorog goes onto to note that the simultaneous management of the throughput times, resource allocations and the costs of projects is a complex process of balancing the (often conflicting) interests of multiple participants. So there exist some real, and as yet unresolved, differences in PPM methodology and application worldwide. There is research work which sought to greatly inform the action in the field and was an effective exemplar of Participatory Action Research (Mcintyre, 2002; Dick et al., 2009; Crist et al., 2009a, 2009b) (PAR). The whole action research initiative was, put simply, one of engaging in praxis most effectively and the cycle of reflect, plan, do and review in alignment with the program life cycle methodology of evaluate, plan, do and review (Rose, 2011). 3. Discussion What may all this all lead to then in respect of validating the research and how may that be learnt, applied and taken forward? The first impact of the findings on practice is thinking about the role and actual workable process of Projects within Programs. If Projects are more clearly framed within a Program's intended
3
benefits outcome delivery and linked through a balance of hard and soft factors, the Project Management practice is at less risk and the Program Management enables project success (Belassi and Tukel, 1996; Cooke-Davies, 2002; Diallo and Thuillier, 2004; Lim and Mohamed, 1999; Schindler and Eppler, 2003; Winter et al., 2006). The recent focus on Project Management research and practice development has been centered on strategy, with the explicit aim of Projects being firmly seen as delivery vehicles of outputs which, when combined with other projects, deliver valuable outcomes and benefits (Cracknell, 2000; Crawford et al., 2006). This can be reinforced by establishing a clearer link between Projects and Programs, using tools that are shown to work to that end. The Logframe (USAID (1973) The logical framework: modifications based on experience, Speckley, 2004; Baccarini, 1999; AUSAID, 2005) and the M&E tools used effectively and efficaciously, if not efficiently in the International Development and Aid/Relief Sector, or a variant of them have, at least have provided clear ways in which the front end to Projects can be mapped and integrated into Programs (Schindler and Eppler, 2003; Pellegrinelli, 2011). The international development industry has quite a different PPM methodology to that of the PMI SPM and PMBOK, for instance (Comparison of the European Commission's project cycle management, 2006). This wider perspective can elucidate both challenges and practical benefits which both question and improve the very core functioning of the traditional effectiveness of Project Management. The most obvious aspect in which the International Project world has for decades may have done better than the traditional Project Management world is in the antecedent Program life cycle mapping and scope to Project development (Ika et al., 2010). What is significantly a more recent important discovery is that the practical workings of PPM can be seen as simpler processes when it is understood how they can be worked together much more effectively by working Program and Project Management in a more integrated way. It is also then a more effective lead to develop the competence of PPM team members to become reflective practitioners and to improve knowledge transfer within and between Projects and Programs (Pellegrinelli, 2011; Lloyd-Walker and Walker, 2011; Cooke-Davies, 2000; Cicmil et al., 2006; Winter et al., 2006; Morris et al., 2006). This concordance then also enables complementary competence standards for both Program and Projects. It has also been noted that Programs and Projects are each modified in significantly different ways by the terms ‘success’ and ‘failure’ so that projects in isolation work differently to a program of projects (Comparison of the European Commission's project cycle management/logical framework approach with international PM standards and methodologies, 2006; Shao et al., 2012; Crawford et al., 2003; Pellegrinelli, 2011). The challenge lies in the life cycle in respect of the delivery of services of value from a Project (often referred to as ‘outputs’) to the realisation of the benefits from a Program (often referred to as ‘outcomes’) (Crawford et al., 2006; Steinfort and Walker, 2011; Crawford and Bryce, 2003).
Please cite this article as: P. Steinfort, 2016. Community and post-disaster Program Management Methodology, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijproman.2016.07.005
4
P. Steinfort / International Journal of Project Management xx (2016) xxx–xxx
The other aspect which has historically been worked better in the international development Program to Project arena is that of learning and growth through interacting with the Key Stakeholders. Key success factors in project learning and the integration of knowledge goals into the overall models, goals and metrics of an organisation are addressed in the paper on harvesting project knowledge (Schindler and Eppler, 2003; Steinfort and Walker, 2011). This can be taken into the relevant lessons learnt through the understanding of Program success through benefits realisation (Shao et al., 2012) and Project Management success has, more recently, been best understood through Program to Project delivery. 4. Research — significant benefits of PPM as an integrated theory and practice The first and most important point out of all the above work is that Program and Project Management methodologies should and can work in direct relationship with each other and, that in validation, you can't have one without the other (Gorog, 2011). The differences between the PMBOKv5 and the SPMv3 will be addressed in time, one would expect, and the work outlined in this paper may assist with this. Further to this, though, is the ongoing need for the wide and varying Program and Project Management methodologies around the globe to be aligned and to be enabled to interact significantly better with each other and, importantly, with some overarching agreement as to what is core to any successful Program and Project Management. A particular example of this is part of the PMI's PostDisaster Project Management Methodology (PMI PDMM) (Project Management Institute (2005) Project Management Methodology for Post-Disaster Reconstruction. Newtown Square) which states that it is for “Projects undertaken in a crisis/disaster rebuild environment. It can also apply to development projects aimed at building sustainability. This Methodology is based on PMI's A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) — Third Edition. Unless otherwise noted, it should be assumed that the source of the information in the Methodology is the PMBOK® Guide — Third Edition.” (PMI, 2007a; Steinfort, 2008) It is interesting to note that this PMI PDMM is based on the 3rd edition of the PMBOK, has not been updated in this respect since 2005,but is nevertheless available on the PMI website (PMI, 2007a). The 3rd edition of the PMBOK had no Stakeholder Engagement processes (they were only introduced to version 5 of the PMBOK) and there are a number of important other aspects not covered in this publication which are essential to sustainable post-disaster Program to Project Management. All of the above challenges in the theory to practice post-disaster Project Management were reflected upon in
the PhD research into “Understanding the Antecedents of Project Management best practice; lessons learnt for and from Aid Relief Projects”(D. P. Steinfort, 2010) which was enabled by a Scholarship from RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia and sponsored by the PMI Educational Foundation Moe et al. (2007) with extensive validation over a decade of praxis. These challenges and more were addressed, and reflected upon through ongoing research in continuous PAR and PPM. Current Project Management frameworks fall short in recognising the contextual factors and antecedents that affect undertaking Programs of Projects in high risk/disaster relief situations and in general. How then can we equip personnel with the knowledge and skills to enable best value outcomes? 4.1. Research methodology and validation The context of this research into practice, or praxis, may be best understood by relevant questions of what, why, who and how to provide the answers to the contextual frame for a program of projects. ‘The purposes of action research are to involve key community stakeholders in developing knowledge and take action to solve problems.’ (Crist et al. (2009a, 2009b)) There is the need for a critical, realistic and pragmatic way to deal with these serious challenges. “Action research was described as pragmatic because (a) it used existing resources, such as researchers' and community members' experience and skills; (b) it was conducted within contexts that were available; and (c) it worked toward solutions that were “practical or practically useful.”” (Crist et al., 2009a, 2009b) The predominant paradigm worked through was that of Pragmatic Action Research with double loop learning and this was carried out in two key phases; • Literature Review and Reflective Action Research spanning 40 years of international Program to Project Management practice • Pragmatic Action Research of the range of disasters globally. The reflective Program to Project Practice methodology for this research included repeating cycles/spirals of action review and research evaluation which may then be seen by the action research cycle as shown in Fig. 1. At its core, action research comprises repeating steps through the cycle of reflect, plan, do and review. The context and assumptions of the research are defined and then within that the research is worked to resolve outcomes through outputs and gain significant knowledge through evaluation. This pragmatic action research enables very focused validation through project evaluation not offered through other methods
Please cite this article as: P. Steinfort, 2016. Community and post-disaster Program Management Methodology, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijproman.2016.07.005
P. Steinfort / International Journal of Project Management xx (2016) xxx–xxx
5
• Who are the key stakeholders, their priority needs, outcome wants and key success criteria? • Why do this? Does this fit within the overall goal to Program outcomes? • How can this be done? — To achieve maximum impact for the Programs that frame a feasible set of Projects and together are sustainable?
Fig. 1. Pragmatic action research dual cycle. Source: D. P. Steinfort (2010).
of research ( Eden, 2006) which then, together, enables the best understanding and project practice. Evaluation theory has been worked mostly within Logframe/ PCM define objectives goals/impacts by a series of outcomes which are in turn defined by a series of outputs or deliverables. These four causes are more readily the activities (or inputs), deliverables (or outputs), outcomes and objectives (or goal). The Logframe analysis is typically a four by four table as shown in Fig. 2. The paradigm for this research thesis was best resolved as that of PCM within which both the PMBOK and LFA models can work. “Project Managers often make sense of the problem situation through a combination of hard facts, observations and ‘selective’ communication with stakeholders before they come up with a workable situation. Often, the solution is implemented using a plan–do–check–act process that resembles action research cycle.”(Hughes et al., 2004) (see also Table 1) Here we worked through classical pragmatic action research, but with the added value of the lessons of evaluation and the core alignments of PCM. This provided a very strong and consistent evaluation methodology and rigorous review, reflection and validation. The Context or ‘Situation Analysis’ is best resolved by key value questions of what, why, who and how and worked through the program to project value cycles also as shown in Fig. 1. In respect of the questions of what, who, why and how that form our situation analysis we also arrive at the core questions as follows; • What is the actual state of things that can be? What is the sustainable Program or feasible Project plans and what are the key risks?
This can be applied in any Pragmatic Action Research process or Program of projects evaluation, for groups or practitioners needing to resolve the keys, initially through rapid assessment, for feasible and sustainable resolution. Communication is, of course, one of the keys to success in these, or any, environments. To make sense of the process and for factors to be successfully engaged, the stakeholder outcomes need to be readily understood and effectively followed, particularly by the stakeholders and not just the experts from ‘out of town’ or ‘overseas’. We do have a progressive growth in understanding, but each cycle will bring keys, greater or less, in themselves. This enables both a comparative and an overall summation of the impact and validity of the research. Then we can achieve triangulation in more than one form, the first being edits achieved through rigorous peer reviews in outcomes and practice and the rigorous action research methodology already outlined and then in place. But more rigour can be added by enabling the key validity testing from critical pragmatist paradigm — sense-making, workability and communities in practice and then testing through internal and external validation (Crist et al., 2009a, 2009b, Decker, 1998; Weick et al., 2005; Crist et al., 2009a, 2009b, Shalin, 1992; Lincoln and Guba, 1986). So for each outcome cycle we will also evaluate workability and the sense-making effect on the communities in practice. How do we best and most effectively within the bounds and possible length of this paper do that? To enable that we may also see understanding, in the context of this research objective, as tantamount to sense-making. The simple question here is — could people or organisations make sense of the outcomes and confirm understanding sufficient to make sense of the process and implementation or effective actions in practice? So we will progress to evaluate or validate understanding in the context of making sense of actions in practice. The first test is that of knowledge and understanding. Has knowledge been obtained and the test of that is — can it be demonstrated in effect? Understanding is a step beyond knowledge as outlined earlier in this thesis. Again we look to see if understanding has been demonstrated i.e. is there an observed effect of that understanding in practice and output or outcome? Knowledge and understanding to sense-making — How much did this action lead to better knowledge, understanding and sense-making in the community of practice? The next test is that of workability. Put simply — does it work in practice when applied in context? The test of
Please cite this article as: P. Steinfort, 2016. Community and post-disaster Program Management Methodology, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijproman.2016.07.005
6
P. Steinfort / International Journal of Project Management xx (2016) xxx–xxx
Activity Description
Criteria
Means of Verification Assumptions (MOVs)
Goal/Impact
Values
Evaluation
Purpose/Outcome
Values
Evaluation
Assumptions
Component Objectives/ Intermediate Results
Value Criteria
Monitoring
Risks
Outputs
SMART
Monitoring
Risks
Work program
Fig. 2. Logical framework structure. Source: AUSAID (2005).
workability is a test of outcome in practical terms. Were the outcomes achieved in a technical and practical sense? In some circles, that is referred to as evidence based evaluation. Practice and workability — How much could that action output be effectively applied in practice? Community internal and external validity — How much was understood and workable, internally and externally, in the community(s) of practice in review? Objective impact — What value did this action output/ deliver to the impact outcome on the overall objective? So through these then we may have an indicative range of tests of outcomes, including — technical, i.e. was the technical product achieved in the field (poiesis), practical i.e. was the practical outcome achieved through purpose and process (praxis) and community in practice i.e. was the community satisfied with the result or impact. So that is very effective triangulation additional to the rigour of ongoing cycles and the dialectical developmental improvement that comes from that triangulation and critical reflection. 5. Results — impact and implications for Program to Project Management theory and practice Recent disasters have been of a scale and impact that have challenged Program to Project Management preparedness and response more than ever before. This reality is very relevant in all Project and Program management evaluation work and in this research, in particular, in that through methodology, models and practice we can constantly review or monitor actions (diagnosis) and the planned vs. actual mismatches that inevitably occur and reflect upon or evaluate the future value outcomes (prescription) (Crawford, 2003). This is a fundamental process embedded in Project and Program Management in the International Development Sectors over many decades now. The challenge for recovery and reconstruction after disasters and this participatory action research/program management, in particular, as may be evidenced by the range of disasters in
Table 2 over which this research and follow on practical applications were undertaken, has been the multicultural and multilingual environments in which these disasters are located. These were also characterised by differing leadership styles in each community with severe trauma, health, shelter and security concerns. Furthermore, as there were many different stakeholders there were sometimes potentially overwhelming challenges of communication and co-ordination. The type, scale, impact and characteristics of stakeholders involved are summarised in Table 2. The range of environment, culture, language, communication, philosophy, method of Program to Project Management engagement, governance, application and transition to communities in this type, scale, impact and characteristics should bring home to the reader the enormity of the problem and the response that this pragmatic action research is challenged to address. Another Project Management challenge, and one which exposes the gaps in effective engagement from Program to Project levels, is the need to understand and address the short term demands versus long term sustainable and beneficial outcomes and how to apply practical and workable program to project management. 5.1. The challenge of sustainability and resilience in a high risk environment The methodology developed through praxis and continuous improvement has been put to the test in the previously listed disasters and with feedback in publications (PMI, 2014; Steinfort, 2010a) as well as direct response. The resultant PPM Framework and Methodology touched upon in this paper has been developed through global research, supported by a range of leading institutions. This was also robustly tested and validated through the perspective of over 40 years of experience in post-disaster relief and reconstruction which has been effective and efficient in each environment and then overall.
Please cite this article as: P. Steinfort, 2016. Community and post-disaster Program Management Methodology, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijproman.2016.07.005
P. Steinfort / International Journal of Project Management xx (2016) xxx–xxx Table 1 Action research spiral and project management synergistic cycles. Source: Hughes et al. (2004). • Action research spiral • Thematic concern • Plan • Act and observe • Reflect
• Project management cycle • Situation analysis • Objectives • Action Plan • Implementation and monitoring • Evaluation
This work developed from the recognition of the importance of the front end assessment methodology for saving time and cost while at the same time increasing beneficial value to key stakeholders on any projects in any environment (Steinfort and Walker, 2011). This PPM methodology development resolved the inclusion of the international Logical Framework through a traditional Project Management Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and the integration of that with the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) (Moe et al., 2007; Norrie, 2004; Ramage, 2005). This was further developed to integrate with the PMBOK, Prince 2, Agile, Logical Framework and PCM/Project Monitoring and Evaluation methodologies. More than that it enables testing of best value, effectiveness, efficiency, feasibility and sustainability through its unique WBS (Steinfort). One of the most significant developments in this work is the application of the BSC carried through sequentially in the same cycle process to the Goals to Outcomes (Program Benefits) through the WBS to Project deliverables. This enables the feasibility and sustainability testing as a reliable estimate in the best value impact statement or business case (depending on what sector this is being worked in). The three benefits tests of the BSC i.e. Stakeholder Perception, Project Processes, Learning and Growth, if properly evaluated, then lead to the best Impact and financial ROI of the WBS for the Program of Projects. That enables Project success through feasibility validation at a Project level and sustainability at a Program level.
7
This was exhaustively further developed and refined through a wide range of applications in several of the most challenging disasters (outlined in Table 2) in the last ten years into rigorous community PPM Methodology. Each Project or Program of Projects can then be clarified and compared through Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic, and Timely (SMART) end results defined in view of the Program purpose through outcomes, deliverable values through milestones and project to action plans. A sustainable program essentially involves the Project Milestone (outputs) being proved so or not so by regularly monitoring in respect of the Project benefits delivery and the Program outcomes being progressively evaluated to best impact/ROI. The Project deliverables to Program outcomes are first resolved with the key stakeholders through a tabular WBS (PMI, 2011). Most stakeholders find it difficult to read technical project management outputs such as a Gantt chart or traditional WBS. This research clearly found that they relate quite easily to a horizontal tabular WBS, as shown in Fig. 3. This also enables effective and integrated Program and Project mapping from the outset particularly through a necessary rapid assessment process which can be further detailed for interested parties but there is not sufficient space in which to do that in this article. Historically the incorporation of stakeholder needs and wants has been seen as critical to the success of any project in an aid/relief/humanitarian context. Following the stakeholder process and then analysis of data collected during that process the project team will have the most useful information they need to develop a plan for the projects in the response program. In order to manage stakeholder needs and wants it is key to align the key outcomes of the project with the stakeholder needs and goals. Throughout the life cycle of the project these key outcomes should be kept front and centre at all times and progress on the project should be measured to ensure achievement of agreed outcomes and deliverables.
Table 2 Type of disaster, scale, impact, characteristics of stakeholders. Source; Lecomber A and Steinfort P 2012. Disaster Date Type Scale
Aceh 26 Dec. 2004 Massive Earthquake and Tsunami Multiple countries and over 250,000 people killed
Impact Massive Characteristics Severe dislocation of of stakeholders multiple Asian communities; multicultural and multi lingual, many religions and conflicts
Victorian Bushfires 7 Feb. 2009 Extensive Wild Fire Destruction Numerous communities and country towns with one city affected as well
Serious Single culture and reasonably well resourced
Pakistan 22 Jul. 2010 Extensive Floods
Christchurch Japan 22 Feb. 2011 11 Mar. 2011 Massive Earthquake Massive Earthquake and Tsunami This was not only a Nearly a third of the Extensive areas natural disaster of country was devastated. underwater and the A third of the city is massive proportions it was also a nuclear crisis internal displacement still not occupied a of 11 million people year after the disaster. Serious Massive Extreme Unstable political Two cultures (Maori Single culture, but climate and seriously and Western), quite slow in responding poor victims reasonably well appropriately; still serious resourced, but still dislocation suffering badly
Nepal 25 April 2015 Extensive Earthquake Extensive areas including in the capital city of Kathmandu are still affected Devastating Mainly very poor villages and areas where access is incredibly difficult. Added to the political problems
Please cite this article as: P. Steinfort, 2016. Community and post-disaster Program Management Methodology, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijproman.2016.07.005
8
P. Steinfort / International Journal of Project Management xx (2016) xxx–xxx
Fig. 3. Horizontal WBS. Source: D. P. Steinfort (2010).
To get a better view of how this actually is worked in practice it may be better to outline that actual Program to Project tool core in this application. The horizontal WBS is illustrated in Fig. 3. Revisiting the BSC guided balanced planning and delivery of the full range of Program of Projects. It incorporated the following values; Stakeholder Perception, Learning and Growth, Project Processes and Outcome Impact. For the purposes of sufficient insight of this application, for one particular outcome, Fig. 4 shows the guiding value of the four criteria of the BSC to arrive at deliverable benefits recognised by the community which, in fact, those houses are being built for. Using a specific Program outcome for the same example project this time, see how they have come up with an example with deliverables which address the values set by the BSC: The first deliverable addresses what the key stakeholders want to achieve through this Outcome. In this case that is stable and safe houses which are providing disadvantaged families with shelter and stability. They need them to be sustainable. Stakeholders do not just want to see tents or houses which are not appropriate or not suited to the environment; they want to know that houses have been built which will provide real sustainability and stability to the occupants. The next deliverable addresses the value of Learning and Growth by including an aspect of the project which educates and trains local people to manage the rebuilding of their own community. They will learn lifelong skills which will not only promote growth, but will also contribute to the reconstruction and resilience of their community. The next deliverable will allow the project to monitor and evaluate case studies and reports, vital pieces of information, as
part of the program. This will allow the Program and Project processes of the project to improve through knowledge retention and lessons learnt from completed work. The last and most important deliverable addresses the value of ensuring there is real impact and return on investment, by making sure that houses are not just built to provide occupants with basic shelter and are really just empty shells, but which provide living conditions which are acceptable and allow the house to become a home, thus providing best value to the local economy. A Traditional WBS, such as the one illustrated in Fig. 5, enables a clear visual picture of a Program of Projects plan and the process of how Project deliverable outputs follow Program outcomes, which directly link back to the Goal of the combined stakeholders. It also shows the particular set of deliverables outlined above within the bigger set of collective goals to outcomes and deliverables for the whole of the community recovery and reconstruction program. In good community shared project planning, communication and management, this WBS can then be downloaded to a Gantt chart structured to incorporate Program outcomes grouping Project deliverable outputs and, importantly, also the precedence of the BSC factors leading to best value sustainable milestone delivery. This Gantt chart allows a Program/Project Manager and the related communities to accurately map their project, from the goal right down to the timeframe for each activity. It is essentially a timeline of project activities giving a visual map of how the projects will be carried out, which activities are dependent on others, and when each activity and deliverable can be expected to be completed. This also allows the Project Manager to monitor the progress of the project and make any necessary changes in expected finish dates and activity timeframes.
Please cite this article as: P. Steinfort, 2016. Community and post-disaster Program Management Methodology, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijproman.2016.07.005
P. Steinfort / International Journal of Project Management xx (2016) xxx–xxx
OUTCOME
KEYVALUES/MEASURES
Stakeholder Perception
9
DELIVERABLE BENEFITS
Stable and safe houses are completed
All housesre built
Systems & Processes
Project Management and reports of lessons learned
Learning & Growth
Community member strained to manage their own community and houses rebuilding
Value / Financial
Rebuilding provides sustainable living to occupants
Fig. 4. Example of a program outcome horizontal tabular WBS (Steinfort and Walker, 2011).
One of the main purposes of the Gantt chart is to plan which activities must happen when, and whether they are reliant on another to be completed first. For example, this project involves the outcomes “All houses rebuilt” and “Infrastructure in place
GOAL
and working.” Consider the Deliverables and activities for these outcomes. Although they are different outcomes, they may be linked in that particular activities will affect the start or progress of others.
Rebuild a village community
OUTCOMES
Infrastructure in
Community
place and working
facilities
All houses rebuilt
Community functioning effectively
DELIVERABLES
Workshops for community members
Community members trained
Community members trained
Social cohesion
Community information and statistics
Case studies and reports recorded
Stable and safe houses completed
Community groups formed
Social infrastructure rebuilt
Facilities completed
Case studies and reports recorded
Economy of community increased
Civil infrastructure rebuilt
Facilities supporting the community
All houses provide sustainable living
Education and health systems functioning
Fig. 5. Traditional work breakdown structure. Source: Steinfort (2010b). Please cite this article as: P. Steinfort, 2016. Community and post-disaster Program Management Methodology, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijproman.2016.07.005
10
P. Steinfort / International Journal of Project Management xx (2016) xxx–xxx
The value of each output though may be of more value than just cost to community. In these cases the best way to get an objective review of relative value is through agreeing value criteria to the outputs. There will always be the balancing of direct cost and community value beyond cost and value so it is essential to be able to define that appropriately. The prime need here then is to resolve the relativities of financial and nonfinancial criteria and arrive at a process which the stakeholders can both understand and value objectively. Of particular relevance to the measurable program outcomes of these sets of projects is that the sequence of the BSC puts the final delivery milestone measurement on the financial/impact value. Effective stakeholder engagement, processes, learning and growth targets will enable the best impact outcomes in both financial and overall value results. The antecedent or predecessors linking through the BSC, the WBS and then the Gantt chart can bring about the best value plans and benefits realisation of all. In the example illustrated in Fig. 6 the antecedents or precedents to each milestone delivery are developed through the BSC sequence to a final impact of financial outcome and then the Gantt for agreement and effective application. This is key to the sustainability reckoning and the constant evaluation both leading into the Program approval and ongoing through the life cycle. There is also the key aspect of sustainability. When the key stakeholders have decided on their outcomes, deliverables and activities it is time to conduct a pragmatic sustainability test. This is a simple way of testing and validating whether the Program to Project plan makes sense and if it will ultimately ‘work’: Key questions to ask
• Can each aspect of the project be evaluated? • Is the evaluation system built into the Program? • What are the overall criteria for success? What are the milestones for those criteria? Why evaluate projects? By conducting regular monitor and evaluation of your project you can see where the rating of success criteria needs improvement and you can work to address this before it becomes an issue. Similarly, you can also see which success criteria are being met and for which the rating is improving, which gives you an idea of which aspects of the project are working. • Effectiveness = Value of Program Outcome Benefits / Value of Project Deliverable(s). • Efficiency = Project Deliverables(s) Value / Value of Input Resource (Steinfort, 2010c) It is essential to define program to project value with the key stakeholders before commitment so that you can monitor and evaluate through the program agreement to project. What all of the above leads to is the need to develop Program to Project Management methodology, education and training which is sustainable amongst communities of practice in essentially high risk, high need situations where it can be first understood, and then applied widely and effectively. This action research was implemented in a wide range of Programs outlined in Table 2 and further to that the resultant Program to Project Management methodology outlined, albeit
Fig. 6. Project antecedents through the BSC Project Gantt plan (Steinfort, 2010b). Please cite this article as: P. Steinfort, 2016. Community and post-disaster Program Management Methodology, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijproman.2016.07.005
P. Steinfort / International Journal of Project Management xx (2016) xxx–xxx
11
briefly herein because of word necessary word limitations for such a journal article then led to a series of validations some of which are outlined here below. Initially Workshops were carried out in specific disaster responses in the Pakistan Floods where more than the population of Australia were displaced out of home or community. The results of that work were validated below.
Further to that, PSA provided invaluable scoping assistance to the Authority's Community Engagement team specific to reconstruction projects including: feasibility assessments of projects; facilitation of the development of detailed cost plans; and management of the detailed design and documentation process.
1. “Dear all, The past two weeks have been an incredible learning experience for everyone. The outcomes of the effort have already exceeded our expectations. There were a total of 61 people who received initial training, including representatives of major relief organizations, as well as PMP's. In addition, we are all beginning to see how the ‘PSA’ methodology and the ‘PMI’ PMPDR actually are both needed and complement one another, and together create a very robust process set. Armed with the tools, and the incredibly dedicated team(s), I am confident that we will be able to bring even more people together and work towards achieving our common goals of reconstruction and rehabilitation.” PMI Karachi, Pakistan
With the assistance of PSA Project Management, the Authority was able to deliver robust, detailed scoping documents for community initiatives in support of funding applications to the Victorian Bushfire Appeals Fund, which enabled the successful granting .. of projects statewide.
Then further application was carried out in New Zealand after the massive earthquake hit Christchurch and surrounding areas and the response to that was as follows. “On behalf of the PMINZ we wish to extend our sincerethanks for the workshop you … ran for us last Wednesday on a project management methodology for post disaster reconstruction. The feedback from participants has been excellent and you have made a real contribution to the skills required to help rebuilding Christchurch. It was a fantastic blend of the theoretical and practical, and the group work and application of real world examples helped participants understand how to use the tools and techniques. We look forward to discussing ways we offer the workshop in other centres in New Zealand. Regards PMINZ President"" A further application was in Australia after the bushfires devastated communities in the State of Victoria and the knowledge of these Program response applications was as follows. “This letter is to confirm the PSA Project Management played a critical role in both the planning and successful delivery of the reconstruction program across the state of Victoria following the 2009 Bushfires. In the early days of the Victorian Bushfire Reconstruction and Recovery Authority (the Authority), PSA provided expert advice on the delivery of a range of projects, bringing clear analysis and forthright advice in a challenging period, as well as providing major learnings from previous disasters to the Authority.
PSA Project Management are now helping the Authority to deliver projects within the Murrindindi Shire Council region, providing expert resources and methodologies to assist the local council and various community groups in their project management. At the same time PSA ‘Methodology’ bring a commercial urgency to the delivery of the outcomes the Authority is seeking. I would not hesitate to recommend PSA Project Management and particularly their people, experience, knowledge and approach to any agencies who require resources that will help facilitate the best value for input throughout the life of a reconstruction and rebuilding programme.” There are extensive and significant validations in the application of this Pragmatic Action Research to Practice (praxis) further to these and in a whole range of Program to Project disaster response which can be supplied and explained in more detail in follow up.
6. Conclusion/areas for further research The key focus in all of the above is the call of sustainability and community resilience. That is, PPM in the post-disaster reconstruction environment needs to be effectively monitored and evaluated to be sustainable, first of all. There is some alignment between the overview of this developed PSA Program to Project Methodology (PSA PPM) and that of the PMI Standard for Program Management (PMI SPM). At the same time there are significant differences in their relative operations and due process and these would indeed be a valuable reference for further desperately needed research in this area (Fig. 7). The PSA PPM works directly and is fully incorporated with PPM proven in the referenced disasters and integration of the appropriate international development frameworks. The PMI SPM relies for its Project Management on a separate standard, the PMBOK and the PMI PMMPDR on a twice outdated PMBOK for its own. At the same time, the PMI SPM gives wide bounds around the actual application of the delivery of Project success through the PMBOK and a very notable difference in application from organisation to organisation let alone country and cultural interpretation from place to place.
Please cite this article as: P. Steinfort, 2016. Community and post-disaster Program Management Methodology, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijproman.2016.07.005
12
P. Steinfort / International Journal of Project Management xx (2016) xxx–xxx
Fig. 7. PSA Program (PSA PPM) cycle and the PMI Standard for Program Management (PMI SPM) cycle.
PMI SPM is yet to address the vast array of international development PPM methods or workings that are necessarily applied for funding in these environments. It therefore risks leaving the leading of the appropriate NGO and UN/World Bank et al., frames out of effective Project connection, language or even recognition. This may leave differences and difficulties in even the most basic of communication (one of the essential competencies in both Program and Project Management). It essentially limits the language to a top down approach for those who know the PMBOK Project Management process but not those who need to know the international PPM common process and language. At the same time, it excludes the methodology interpretation of the leading groups in the international development sector, as previously outlined. The PSA PMM has worked to bring those various methods and cultural/project language backgrounds together to enable a common core of Program to Project Management language and process. It works to ○ Explain how the PM mindset is changing to enable us to better see value and benefit as being derived from individual projects to (most usually) enhancing the effectiveness of programs designed to deliver business or social outcomes. ○ Offer a deeper understanding through our exposure to the vast aid relief and aid project literature of the validity of seeing project objectives and outputs in a broader way than has been presented in traditionally privileged and dominant PM literature The Learner Outcomes (Steinfort, 2010b) outlined here and which can be further referenced for the PSA PPM are summarised as • A practical process for assessing, planning and delivering best value outcomes for Programs and Projects in all range of environments.
• A clear understanding of key factors and processes in what enables Program to Project success through rigorous and now proven research and application. • A clear view into the lens of the PPM process which can be integrated into any Project methodology through the working Scope to an effective WBS process and engaging key stakeholder values through the BSC. Significantly more detail can be presented on these findings and outside of the limits of this journal paper with its word limitations presently. Regardless, the most significant challenge of further work in this very much needed integration is the large gap in connection between the traditional PPM methodologies worldwide and those promoted by the various large and otherwise influential project management institutions and academies. Further research is needed into the significant gaps in Program to Project Management Methodology referred to in this paper and the necessary resolutions both within and between the leading Project Management Institutes and between them and the leading international development organisation. The work reported upon here does meanwhile offer real hope and due process to this much needed research. Unfortunately related lack of the necessary resourcing remains something that no one Program or Project Management institution have yet been able to come to terms with let alone resolve. In this respect the PSA PPM methodology has worked to address this gap and also has validated examples of resolution. In that this article started and will finish on the subject of high risk Program Management, it was the response to some of the most impacting disasters of recent, if not all times, that brought to realisation the gap at the core of the Program to Project Management discourse. That gap can then be seen in a wider perspective of the need to put the necessary effort into the resolution of the appropriate universal language and process for effective Program
Please cite this article as: P. Steinfort, 2016. Community and post-disaster Program Management Methodology, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijproman.2016.07.005
P. Steinfort / International Journal of Project Management xx (2016) xxx–xxx
Management to efficient Project Management and in an effective and sustainable way. This research perspective also needs to be viewed in the face of the growing threat of possibly the most potential global disaster of all, that is climate change, with the increasing occurrence of significant disasters and catastrophes. The realisation is that when this is addressed there will be a very significant step forward. There exists the realisation that this is possible to be done and steps have already been taken primarily through this work reported on here and through the PMI, the PMI Educational Foundation, RMIT University, the University of Auckland, Resilient Organisations, New Zealand and globally, Emergency Management Victoria and several others have already been taken and addressed to do that. The research outlined in this paper is offered as a starting point. The resolution to this challenge is the development of an effective, efficient and sustainable Program to Project Management methodology that can be applied globally in high risk, community and all range of environments. This is a challenge to all institutions claiming credibility or leadership of international Programs to Project Management globally and one that will not go away. It is a global Project Management challenge which will bring justifiable credit to those who can and do respond. References Anon, 2004. In: Bank, W. (Ed.), Local Pathways to Global Development, Marking Five Years of the World Bank — Indigenous Knowledge for Development Program, Knowledge and Learning Group. The World Bank, Africa Region. AUSAID, 2005. AusGuide — a guide to program management. 3.3 The Logical Framework. Baccarini, D., 1999. The logical framework method for defining project success. Proj. Manag. J 30. Belassi, W., Tukel, O.I., 1996. A new framework for determining critical success/failure factors in projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag 14, 141–151. Cicmil, S., Williams, T., Thomas, J., Hodgson, D., 2006. Rethinking project management: researching the actuality of projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag 24, 675–686. Comparison of the European Commission's project cycle management/logical framework approach with international PM standards and methodologies, J. F., MBA, PMP; MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE SOLUTIONS S.A. – TENSTEP SPAIN, 2006. Originally Published as a Part of 2006 PMI Global Congress Proceedings — Madrid, Spain. Cooke-Davies, 2000. Towards Improved Project Management Practice. PhD, Leeds Metropolitan University. Cooke-Davies, T., 2002. The “real” success factors on projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag 20, 185–190. Cooke-Davies, T., 2009. Making essential choices with scant information – front-end alignment of projects – doing the right project. In: Williams, T.M., Samset, K., Sunnevåg, K.J. (Eds.), Front-end Decision Making in Major Projects. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. CracknelL, B.E., 2000. Evaluating Development Aid : Issues, Problems and Solutions. Sage Publications. Crawford, P.B.P., 2003. Project monitoring and evaluation: a method for enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of aid project implementation. Int. J. Proj. Manag 21, 363–373. Crawford, P., Bryce, P., 2003. Project monitoring and evaluation: a method for enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of aid project implementation. Int. J. Proj. Manag 21, 363–373.
13
Crawford, L., Costello, K., Pollack, J., Bentley, L., 2003. Managing soft change projects in the public sector. Int. J. Proj. Manag 21, 443–448. Crawford, L., Morris, P., Thomas, J., Winter, M., 2006. Practitioner development: from trained technicians to reflective practitioners. Int. J. Proj. Manag 24, 722–733. Crist, J.D., Parsons, M.L., Warner-Robbins, C., Mullins, M.V., Espinosa, Y.M., 2009a. Pragmatic action research with 2 vulnerable populations. Fam. Community Health 32, 320–329. Crist, J.D., Parsons, M.L., Warner-Robbins, C., Mullins, M.V., 2009b. Pragmatic Action Research with 2 Vulnerable Populations – Mexican American Elders and Formerly Incarcerated Women. Decker, C.A., 1998. Sensemaking in organizations, by K. E. Weick. (1995). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 321 pp., $44.00 cloth, $19.95 paper. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q 9, 198–201. Diallo, A., Thuillier, D., 2004. The success dimensions of international development projects: the perceptions of African project coordinators. Int. J. Proj. Manag 22, 19–31. Dick, B., Stringer, E., Huxham, C., 2009. Theory in action research. Action Res 7, 5–12. Eden, C. H., C. (2006A) Researching organizations using action research. IN Clegg, S., Hardy, C., Nord, W. AND Lawrence, T., (EDS.) Handbook of Organisation Studies, 2ND EDN. Beverley Hills: SAGE Gorog, M., 2011. Translating single project management knowledge to project programs. Proj. Manag. J 42, 17–31. Hughes, I., Ndonko, F., Ouedraogo, B., Ngum, J., Popp, D., 2004. International education for action research: the Bamenda model. Action Research e-Reports, 020 Online. Ika, L.A., Diallo, A., Thuillier, D., 2010. Project management in the international development industry. Int. J. Manag. Projects Bus 3, 61–93. Lecomber, A., Steinfort, P., 2012. Next Generation Disaster Management.” Chapter 5 Project Management Training in the Next Decade. In: CLARKE, M.A.G.G. (Ed.), Next Generation Security and Disaster Management Training in the Next Decade. Australia Defence and Risk Institute, Canberra. Lim, C.S., Mohamed, M.Z., 1999. Criteria of project success: an exploratory reexamination. Int. J. Proj. Manag 17, 243–248. Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.E., 1986. Research, evaluation, and policy analysis: heuristics for disciplined inquiry. Rev. Policy Res 5, 546–565. Lloyd-walker, B., Walker, D., 2011. Authentic leadership for 21st century project delivery. Int. J. Proj. Manag 29, 383–395. Maylor, H.B.T., Cooke-Davies, T., Hodgson, D., 2006. From projectification to programmification. Int. J. Proj. Manag 663–674. Mcintyre, J., 2002. An adapted version of a community of practice approach to evaluation owned by indigenous stakeholders. Eval. J. Australisia 57–59. Moe, T.L., Gehbauer, F., Mueller, S.S., 2007. Balanced scorecard for natural disaster management projects. Disaster Prev Manag 16, 785–806. Morris, P.W.G., Jamieson, A., Shepherd, M.M., 2006. Research updating the APM body of knowledge 4th edition. Int. J. Proj. Manag 24, 461–473. Norrie, J.W.D.H.T., 2004. A balanced scorecard approach to project management leadership. Proj. Manag. J 35, 47–56 PMI. Pellegrinelli, S., 2011. What's in a name: project or programme? Int. J. Proj. Manag 29, 232–240. PMI, 2007a. Project management methodology for post disaster reconstruction [online]. Available http://pmief.org/learning-resources/learning-resourcesnonprofits-and-ngos/project-management-methodology-for-post-disasterreconstruction. PMI, 2007b. Project Manager Competency Development Framework — Second Edition. Newtown Square, PA. PMI, 2011. Practice Standard for Scheduling —. second ed. PMI, Newtown, PA, USA. PMI, 2013a. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge v5. PMI. Project Management Institute (PMI), Sylva, NC, USA. PMI, 2013b. The Standard for Program Management. third ed. Project Management Institute (PMI), Newtown Square, PA. PMI, 2014. Workshop Explains Managing Post Disaster Environments. PMI TodayPhilippines, PMI Philippines Chapter. Project Management Institute, 2005. Project Management Methodology for Post-disaster Reconstruction. Project Management Institute, NEWTOWN SQUARE, P.
Please cite this article as: P. Steinfort, 2016. Community and post-disaster Program Management Methodology, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijproman.2016.07.005
14
P. Steinfort / International Journal of Project Management xx (2016) xxx–xxx
Ramage, P.A.,.A., 2005. Measuring success — factors impacting on the implementation and use of performance measurement within victoria's human services agencies. Evaluation Journal of Australisia 5, 5–17. Rose, K.H., 2011. What enables project success: lessons from aid relief projects. Proj. Manag. J 42, 94. Schindler, M., Eppler, M.J., 2003. Harvesting project knowledge: a review of project learning methods and success factors. Int. J. Proj. Manag 21, 219–228. Shalin, D.N., 1992. Critical theory and the pragmatist challenge. Am. J. Sociol 98, 237–279. Shao, J., M. R., Turner, J.R., 2012. Measuring program success. Proj. Manag. J 43, 37–49. Sohmen, D.R.V.S., D. C. K. D, 2015. Ten core competencies of program managers: an empirical study. Int. J. Health Econ. Dev 1, 1–7. Speckley, F.U.,.E., 2004. A Project Life Cycle and Logical Framework Toolkit. Steinfort, P.A.W.,.D., 2008. A Critique of the PMI Post-disaster Rebuild Methodology. In: Foundation, P.E. (Ed.), PMI Research Conference. PMI, Warsaw, Poland.
Steinfort, D. P. 2010a. Understanding the Antecedents of Project Management Best Practice—Lessons to Be Learned from Aid Relief Projects. Published doctoral dissertation, RMIT University—Melbourne. PhD, RMIT University. Steinfort, P., 2010b. A Healthier Outcome. The Project Manager. Australian Institute of Project Management. Steinfort, P., 2010c. “Like a Bridge over Troubled Waters” — What Enables Project Success. In: PMOz (Ed.), PMOZ. PMOz, Melbourne. Steinfort, P., Walker, D., 2011. What Enables Project Success, Lessons from Aid Relief Projects, PMI Newtown Square. PMI, PA, USA. UNDP, 2002. Handbook on Monitoring and Evaluating for Results. N. Y, EVALUATION OFFICE. USAID, 1973. The Logical Framework: Modifications Based on Experience. W. D. U.-P. M. E. D. Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M., Obstfeld, D., 2005. Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organ. Sci 16, 409–421. Winter, M., Smith, C., Morris, P., Cicmil, S., 2006. Directions for future research in project management: the main findings of a UK governmentfunded research network. Int. J. Proj. Manag 24, 638–649.
Please cite this article as: P. Steinfort, 2016. Community and post-disaster Program Management Methodology, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijproman.2016.07.005
