International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 486–499

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Project Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Project facilitation as an active response to tensions in international

development programmes
John Lannon∗, John N. Walsh
Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick, Ireland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: This paper examines the tension within international development programmes between traditional task-oriented
International development approaches to development and the wider view of programmes as sites for adaptability and learning. It charac-
Programme management terises it as a set of inter-related tensions between recursive and adaptive tendencies that exist at individual
Partnership
actor, programme and institutional levels. Drawing on a multiple interpretive case study of partnership based
Non-governmental organisations
programmes between an international non-government organisation and local partners in three countries, it
Adaptive management
Tensions looks at how these tensions play out in practice. Based on the findings, it proposes an active response to the
Project facilitation tensions called project facilitation. This is an adaptive and co-created process that incorporates local experience
and practice based knowledge to achieve strategic goals, while utilising recognised project management practices
to achieve agreed outcomes. By adopting active responses to the tensions that exist within programmes it offers
greater potential for effective delivery of long term benefits than the more typical defensive response strategies.
Project facilitation is consistent with the social constructionist view of programmes and programme manage-
ment but broadens our understanding by emphasising the need to actively consider how the tensions inherent in
programmes are responded to.

1. Introduction
From its early conceptualisation as a framework for grouping ex-
isting projects and defining new projects (Pellegrinelli, 1997), pro-
gramme management has evolved into an established method for man-
aging complex, uncertain, and large-scale changes (Martinsuo & Hov-
erfält, 2018). It provides a means to bridge the gap between project
delivery and organisational strategy (Lycett, Rassau & Danson, 2004).
It also offers a transformational way to integrate projects (Murray-
Webster & Thiry, 2000) in a way that builds capabilities to deliver
long term benefits (Wagner & Lock, 2016). Projects are typically per-
formance focused and task orientated (Rijke et al., 2014), while pro-
grammes are characterised by greater levels of complexity. This is due
to their longer duration, the sharing of resources across projects, the
need for inter-project coordination, the divergence and interrelations
between constituent projects, and the involvement of multiple stake-
holders (Pellegrinelli, Partington, Hemingway, Mohdzain & Shah, 2007;
Stretton, 2016; Wagner & Lock, 2016). In environments with these
characteristics, standard programme management approaches can ex-
acerbate tensions between the task-oriented view of projects and the
strategy-focused and often emergent wider organisational view of pro-
grammes (Lycett et al., 2004). This is the case in the international devel-
opment sector, where standards and norms for how organisations do de-
velopment sit alongside an increasing recognition of the need for adapt-
ability and learning (Nejmeh & Vicary, 2009). Adaptability, defined as
the capacity to adaptively regulate behaviour in response to new, chang-
ing, and/or challenging conditions and circumstances (Martin, 2012) is
demonstrated through adaptation. It contrasts with the traditional ap-
proach to development that relies on fixed deliverables and timelines,
and on tools and methods that have become “coercive instruments that
reduce the space for choice” (Eyben, 2013:3). These still dominate in
the sector, and make it difficult to respond effectively to the challenges
and opportunities that emerge out of constantly changing contexts. As
a result, an adaptive programming approach is gaining popularity in
response to the need to confront the inherent complexity and uncer-
tainty in international development (Brinkerhoff, Frazer & McGregor-
Mirghani, 2018; Derbyshire & Donovan, 2016). It sees change as non-
linear and unpredictable, and requires adaptive management practices
and decision-making structures that allow learning to shape programme
activities (Valters, Cummings & Nixon, 2016). The increasing popular-
ity of these practices in the international development (ID) sector differ-
entiate it from other sectors in which approaches to programme man-
agement are less evolved in their use of evidence to inform adaptive
decision-making.
This paper examines the tension between the traditional task-
oriented approaches to development and the wider view of ID pro-

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: john.lannon@ul.ie (J. Lannon).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.06.002
Available online 1 July 2020
0263-7863/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
J. Lannon and J.N. Walsh
grammes as sites for adaptability and learning. The aim is to develop
an understanding of how programme management can respond effec-
tively to this tension in situations where adaptive approaches to man-
agement are being adopted. The context chosen is one that exhibits high
levels of complexity, namely ID programmes run by international non-
governmental organisations (INGOs) working in partnership with local
non-government organisations (NGOs) in developing countries. Draw-
ing on the work of Jarzabkowski (2004) we deconstruct the overarch-
ing tension and characterise it as a set of tensions associated with the
recursive and adaptive characteristics of ID programmes. A multiple in-
terpretive case study is then used to examine how the management of
ID programmes can respond to these tensions. The case studies chosen
involve partnerships between an INGO and its partner NGOs in three
countries, Kenya, Zimbabwe and Uganda. The INGO secures funding and
brings expertise based on decades of involvement in development and
humanitarian interventions around the world, while the NGOs bring an
in-depth understanding of the local social, cultural and political context.
The research finds that active as opposed to defensive responses
(Jarzabkowski, Lê & Van de Ven, 2013) to tensions enable partnerships
to find effective ways of working. The manner in which these active
responses play out in practice is termed project facilitation. It is a com-
petency and trust based approach that supports strategic learning while
devolving decision-making power to project implementers. Following
Pellegrinelli et al. (2007) it conceives programmes as frameworks that
are intimately bound up with and determined by context rather than
governed by a common set of transferable principles and processes.
Within these frameworks, the tensions between project delivery and or-
ganisational strategy can be addressed through deeper understanding
of the interplay between the levels at which tensions between recursive
and adaptive tendencies play out. Project facilitation recognises that re-
cursiveness is constructed at multiple levels, and that adaptive practices
emerge from the interactions between them.
As a concept, project facilitation has relevance for programme man-
agement in other sectors. Finding active responses to the tensions that
exist within programmes offers greater potential for effective deliv-
ery of long term benefits than defensive strategies like repression,
temporal/spatial splitting, or suppression (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013;
Lewis, 2000) that typically occur in programme environments. This is
consistent with the social constructionist view of programmes and pro-
gramme management (Pellegrinelli, 2011). It also broadens our under-
standing by emphasising the need to actively consider the nature of
responses to the tensions inherent in programmes. Project facilitation
acknowledges the tensions between the recursive and adaptive char-
acteristics of projects, programmes and institutions, while also paying
attention to the interplay between micro and macro contextual levels
and the challenges and tensions therein.
The paper is divided into six sections. The first provides a review
of literature on programme management in ID, and deconstructs the
tension between the traditional task-oriented approaches to develop-
ment and the wider view of ID programmes as sites for adaptability and
learning. The second section covers the methodological approach used
to deepen understanding of emergent tensions at different levels, and
to characterise the responses to them. The third presents findings and
analysis, and the fourth discusses their implications. The sixth and final
section identifies limitations and avenues for future research.
2. Literature review
Programme management emerged as a response to the limitations
of traditional project management techniques and structures when
coping with uncertainty, multiple related goals, and speed of change
(Ayas, 1996; Pellegrinelli, 1997). It reflects a need for greater flexi-
bility (Pellegrinelli, Murray-Webster & Turner, 2015), and enables or-
ganisations to deal with emergence, ambiguity and changing goals
(Pellegrinelli, Partington & Geraldi, 2011; Thiry, 2016; Wagner &
Lock, 2016).
487
International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 486–499
According to Lycett et al. (2004), the challenges that occur at a pro-
gramme level require a perspective and approach that differs from that
of project management. They highlighted three issues that can arise as a
result of flawed assumptions that project management and programme
management are equivalent, or that a single standard approach to pro-
gramme management is applicable in all circumstances. These are (i)
an excessive control focus leading to a dysfunctional and bureaucratic
mode of programme management; (ii) ineffective alignment between
programmes and an evolving business context; and (iii) missed oppor-
tunities for effective co-operation and shared learning between project
managers. These issues can be particularly acute in programmes where
the projects are being implemented by a number of different organisa-
tions. Decision-making and change situations involving multiple stake-
holders with conflicting needs and expectations are always challeng-
ing. In order to reduce ambiguity in such situations, expectations need
to be brought out in the open and discussed, and stakeholders need to
construct a shared understanding before they can progress towards an
agreed decision (Thiry, 2002).
Pellegrinelli et al. (2011) describe projects as process-oriented ap-
proaches to bounded change that provide focus, control and effective-
ness of delivery, whereas programmes act as coordinating frameworks
and offer flexibility and staged benefits realization. One of the funda-
mental differences between projects and programmes is the pattern of
activities over time. Unlike projects, programmes do not have a single,
clearly defined deliverable or a finite time horizon. They are more likely
to go through a ‘spiral or ‘loop’, starting with definition and planning.
They then move on to a phase during which projects deliver on the (pro-
gramme) objectives. After this, the programme mandate is typically re-
newed (Pellegrinelli, 1997). This could happen prior to the completion
of any actual project deliverables if the projects have long durations.
Programmes act an organizing mechanism for achieving a strategic
goal or change (Pellegrinelli, 1997). They provide a central point for
the capture of project-related knowledge, and for the sharing and re-
use of knowledge (Kerzner, 2003; Owen, 2006). Component projects
need to be managed with a view to achieving delivery efficiencies
and through the exploitation of existing knowledge (Pellegrinelli et al.,
2015). In this regard, learning and knowledge management are key
elements of how organisations use programmes to respond to change
(Owen, 2006; Thiry, 2002). But within programmes, tensions can arise
between the inward-focused and task-orientated view of projects and the
wider strategy-focused organisational view (Lycett et al., 2004). This
is due to the need to demonstrate alignment to a singular goal while
having the capacity to reconfigure activities to meet changing needs
(Pellegrinelli et al., 2015).
2.1. Programme management in the ID sector
In the 1980s, calls emerged for a new approach to development in
which the project design process became a longer term effort to build
local coalitions and mobilise local resources (Honadle and Rosengard,
1983). As in other sectors, this resulted in a shift to a programme
approach (Ika et al., 2012). The context in which the programmes
take place is typically characterised by socio-political instability, ge-
ographic separation between stakeholders (Hermano, López-Paredes,
Martín-Cruz & Pajares, 2013), intangible project objectives and deliver-
ables (Khang & Moe, 2008), demanding local constraints, difficult prob-
lem domains (Ramalingam, Laric & Primrose, 2014), and uncertainty
in relation to ongoing funding. Like ID projects, programmes tend to
have a wide range of stakeholders, both internal and external, with a
large degree of heterogeneity and a broad diversity of perspectives and
approaches (Diallo & Thuillier, 2005; Ika, 2012; Thatcher, Brower &
Mason, 2006). But while ID projects are characterised as having three
main stakeholders, namely donors, implementing units, and target ben-
eficiaries or communities (Ika, 2012; Khang & Moe, 2008), INGO part-
nership based programmes have four distinct layers. These are donors,
INGO programme units, local NGO partners, and communities. In ad-
J. Lannon and J.N. Walsh
dition, there are a range of other stakeholders that include consultants,
policy makers, and local authorities. Flexible planning that responds to
the needs and expectations of all these stakeholders must be balanced
with the need for strong accountability for donor funding (Derbyshire &
Donovan, 2016). To achieve this, INGO programme management aligns
locally implemented projects with organisational vision, strategy and
mission. It provides a means to co-ordinate and prioritise resources
across projects, and to ensure that resources are efficiently managed
and that work methods are in line with organisational standards and
expectations.
For INGOs, the partnership approach was a response to the reali-
sation that in order for development to be effective and sustainable,
it was important to move away from the traditional donor-recipient
model and enter into partnerships with local organisations and com-
munities (Ndhlovu, 2007). Partnership has always been seen by the
ID sector as involving sharing, with an emphasis on mutuality and
equality of the parties involved (Fowler, 1991). It’s intended to be a
collaborative relationship between entities that are working towards
shared objectives through a mutually agreed division of labour (World
Bank, 1998). This relationship is underpinned by a set of values that in-
clude trust, transparency, accountability, reciprocity and respect (Contu
& Girei, 2014; Schaaf, 2015). In order to be effective it must evolve over
time through mutual learning, voluntary participation and commitment,
with a view to achieving mutually agreed goals. The key challenge for
partnership based programmes, not just in the development sector, is
achieving a shared vision. Literature across a range of sectors identifies
this as not only challenging but essential for effective programme man-
agement, for example in community support (Smith & Bryan, 2005),
higher education (Ilott et al., 2013), and the delivery of public services
through public-private partnerships (Brinkerhoff & Brinkerhoff, 2011;
Jeffares, Sullivan & Bovaird, 2013). There is general agreement that
the “shared desire of delivering the stated outcome” (Lloyd-Walker &
Walker, 2011:390) is crucial in programme alliances and partnerships,
as is the need for shared values (David, 2019). Indeed shared norms such
as basic freedoms, human rights, good governance behaviours, account-
ability, equity, social inclusion, and empowerment are also part of the
explicit rationales for many types of public private partnerships (PPPs)
(Brinkerhoff & Brinkerhoff, 2011).
Contu and Girei (2014) identify two important themes in the con-
text of the partnership approach to programming adopted by INGOs.
The first is the material theme, which refers to material resources such
as the flow of funding. The second, the symbolic theme, is the flow of
knowledge and values. For INGOs partnering with local NGOs these are
interrelated. North-South collaborations can strengthen the partnering
organisations but there is a risk that the INGOs’ control of key resources
and the imposition of managerialist practices can result in subordination
of their partner NGOs and a failure to adapt to the local context (Contu
& Girei, 2014). And while capacity building relationships between the
organisations can be valuable, these too can create conditions that may
result in dependency, co-optation and goal displacement (Lewis, 2004).
In practice most ID partnership based initiatives fall somewhere
along a spectrum between a linear, structured approach and an adaptive
one (O’Donnell, 2016). This is a consequence of the increasing popular-
ity of adaptive programming, which requires that development actors
react and respond to changes in the political and socio-economic op-
erating environment (Valters et al., 2016), amongst donors and other
ID actors in recent times. In recognising that change is inevitable, pro-
grammes are increasingly expected to build in ways to draw on new
learning to support adaptations or adjustments during implementation
(Brinkerhoff et al., 2018).
Recognition of the need for incremental and adaptive efforts sup-
ported by effective learning/feedback loops (Prieto-Martin, Faith, Her-
nandez & Ramalingam, 2017) has led to the concept of adaptive man-
agement. The term originated in computer science where it was used
to denote systems that ‘change their inner workings in response to new
information’ (McGill, Slocum & Lei, 1992:5 in Valters et al., 2016). The
488
International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 486–499
core principle is that management responses should be adapted to the
situation at hand and be suited to dealing with the type of change envis-
aged. In the context of ID, adaptive management enables organisations
to respond to changes in the social, political or economic environment
as well as situations in which planned actions do not yield the expected
results. It combines appropriate analysis with a flexible approach that
involves testing, monitoring, getting feedback and making corrections
as necessary (Chambers & Ramalingam, 2016; O’Donnell, 2016).
Ramalingam (2015), cited in Valters et al. (2016) characterise the
traditional (linear and structured) approach to ID programme manage-
ment as one based on standardisation and control, with change efforts
being driven from the top down. It relies, they say, on management
planning and execution of repeatable tasks. In contrast to this, adap-
tive management views change as emergent and contextual, and relies
on organisations having capacities and processes to generate novelty in
day-to-day performance.
2.2. An evolving landscape
The shift from linear to adaptive approaches to ID programming has
coincided with a shift away from ‘best practices’ towards ‘best fit’ as
a core guiding principle for development (Ramalingam et al., 2014).
This ‘best fit’ approach emphasises the design of programmes that are
optimally adapted to the political, social and economic context, taking
account of a plurality of possible solutions that can be deployed flexibly.
These often work “at multiple levels simultaneously - from community
to national and even global policy levels – in order to facilitate and bring
about change” (Ramalingam et al., 2014:5).
The management approach typically adopted for development in-
terventions, programme cycle management (PCM) defines the key doc-
uments, decision-making processes and management tasks involved in
planning, monitoring, implementation and reporting, evaluation, and
redesign (Roduner, Schläppi & Egli, 2008). Over the last decade, one
life cycle approach, results based management (RBM), has become
prominent within ID programme management. It integrates strategy,
people, resources, processes, and measurements to improve decision-
making, transparency, and accountability (Ika, Diallo & Thuillier, 2010;
McKernan, Kennedy & Aldred, 2016). It also focuses on achieving out-
comes, implementing performance measurement, and learning, while
recognising the importance of contextual adaptability. But while RBM
has both accountability for results and managing for results functions,
Ika (2012) considers it to be too heavily focused on the former and
with not enough attention given to the latter. Concern has also been
expressed that the focus on results that are measurable has narrowed
the view of what is valued and how value is measured, and is promot-
ing activities that are easy to measure rather than what is most trans-
formational i.e. resulting in changes to the power relations and struc-
tures that perpetuate inequality and injustice (Ika & Lytvynov, 2009;
McKernan et al., 2016). Results and evidence based practices may even
constrain organisations’ ability to pursue transformational development
(Eyben, Guijt, Roche & Shutt, 2015). Nonetheless the results agenda has
the potential to create opportunities for people-centred accountability
processes while also promoting useful debates about value for money
(McKernan et al., 2016).
Nejmeh and Vicary (2009) note that programme management frame-
works, originally informed by the major donors in the 1960′s, are in-
creasingly outcome or impact focused, with logic models being used
by most organisations to present cause and effect theories of change.
One such model, the logical framework (logframe) is widely used to
summarise a project or programme’s goals, activities, assumptions, in-
dicators and sources of verification in order to measure and report the
achievement of objectives (Golini, Landoni & Kalchschmidt, 2018). The
logframe provides a simple summary of the key elements of a devel-
opment initiative in a coherent and consistent way, thus providing a
broad understanding of what is involved (Gasper, 2000). Its popularity
at a time when the “project orthodoxy in development management”
J. Lannon and J.N. Walsh
(Morgan, 1983:329) prevailed (up to the mid-1990′s) is not surprising,
as it served the interests of donors and many INGOs well. But while mak-
ing their project management tasks easier (Vargas, Abdollahyan, Soares
& Valle, 2016), it fails to adapt to the troublesome and messy realities
of development practice (Roduner et al., 2008).
Although the suitability and application of the logical framework
approach have been questioned (Dearden & Kowalski, 2003), many IN-
GOs continue to use it (Golini et al., 2018). Despite its limitations it can,
with appropriate training, be a useful tool alongside other tools and ap-
proaches that include PCM, stakeholder analysis and participatory prob-
lem analysis (Dearden & Kowalski, 2003). However logframes are gen-
erally no longer used as a monitoring tool (McKernan et al., 2016). This
is in part because the shift to supporting partnership based programmes
means it is more difficult for donors to determine a causal relationship
between their contribution and the impacts at a community or grass-
roots level (Roduner et al., 2008). As development organisations from
the North withdraw from project implementation, it becomes increas-
ingly difficult for them to show evidence of the impact of the money
being spent.
Starting in the 1970′s, the tradition of logic planning models like
the logframe led to the adoption of a theory of change approach to
articulating the links between activities, outcomes and context (Stein
& Valters, 2012; Walker, 2015). This involves an explanation of how
a programme expects its activities to generate a particular change
(Valters et al., 2016), and reflects an increased desire to be able to ex-
plore and represent change in a way that reflects a complex and systemic
understanding of development. Like the logical framework, theories of
change are intended to describe how a programme will lead to results.
However they provide a more flexible alternative, especially for complex
programmes and contexts (Green, 2016; Valters, 2015; Vogel, 2012).
Nowadays the management of most development programmes is
based on a theory of change model (Vargas et al., 2016). Theories
of change can provide useful links between strategic thinking and ac-
tion (Van Es, Guijt & Vogel, 2015) and are important for learning
(Valters et al., 2016). From a programme perspective, they can be used
to formulate long-term outcomes and provide a basis for strategic plan-
ning. They can also help to work out the necessary preconditions and
requirements to achieve desired outcomes, to identify specific goals, and
to tie those goals to particular engagements (Vargas et al., 2016).
According to Green (2016), viewing a theory of change as a dynamic
process rather than a static document allows for assumptions to be regu-
larly challenged and updated. It keeps the processes of implementation
transparent so that everyone involved knows what is happening and why
(Vargas et al., 2016), and it encourages a focus on learning through “a
continual back and forth between emerging evidence from the changing
local context and the theory on which the programme is based” (p.237).
Effective adaptive programming requires organisations to learn
by doing, to employ robust, context-specific monitoring and evalua-
tion, and to employ and continually update their theories of change
(Ramalingam et al., 2014). While tools like RBM can provide flexibil-
ity, actively learning and identifying actions likely to lead to the desired
changes requires a willingness and capacity to adapt programme design
based on assessment of what is not working. This requires appropriate
analysis, flexibility, and ongoing iterative improvements in the face of
contextual and causal complexity (Chambers & Ramalingam, 2016). As
such it has implications from individual staff level to project implemen-
tation to strategic planning.
2.3. Tensions in ID programmes
In the context of ID every problem is unique and difficult to de-
fine (Ramalingam et al., 2014). Consequently, programmes need to
adapt and change in response to localised knowledge and innovation
that takes place “in the unique conditions, practices and constraints of
low-income settings where communities use their knowledge to solve
problems and share solutions relevant to their local needs and settings”
489
International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 486–499
(Foster & Heeks, 2017:49). Yet despite the emphasis on participation,
localisation and community owned solutions (Mansuri & Rao, 2012),
and the increasing evidence that solutions are best developed closest
to where they will be implemented (Chambers & Ramalingam, 2016;
Moses & Soal, 2017), a linear, top-down/bottom-up view of knowledge
transfer still predominates in the ID sector (Moschitz, Roep, Brunori
& Tisenkopfs, 2015), The view that this unfairly favours Northern or-
ganisations has been widely articulated (Ferguson, Mchombu & Cum-
mings, 2008; Hovland, 2003; Smith, 2017). Equally there have been
calls for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) practices to be improved
(Chambers, 2015; Prieto-Martin et al., 2017), as it becomes increas-
ingly clear that their traditional focus on donor accountability re-
stricts the capacity to learn and adapt. Demands for more rigorous
and robust evidence also has implications for knowledge and learning
(Hayman, 2016). In shaping the evidence debates, INGOs and donors are
presenting their own value-driven standards and ways of working that
are not always conducive to achieving desired outcomes. As King, Kon-
tinen, Narayanaswamy and Hayman (2016) note, the evidence based
agenda, no matter how rational and objective it claims to be, is inher-
ently political when it comes to defining what counts as evidence and
results.
Effective development is dependent on having a good understand-
ing of local situations (Powell, 2006), and on integrating contextual,
local knowledge into development interventions (Ferguson, Huysman
& Soekijad, 2010). Organisations seeking to create and sustain compet-
itive advantage in rapidly changing environments must find ways to
both exploit knowledge and capabilities efficiently and explore ways
to innovate and respond flexibly (Pellegrinelli et al., 2015). They say
project management and projects are more appropriate for exploitation,
whereas programme management and programmes are more conducive
to exploration. Exploitation is associated with “refinement, choice, pro-
duction, efficiency, selection, implementation, execution” whereas ex-
ploration involves “search, variation, risk taking, experimentation, play,
flexibility, discovery, innovation” (March, 1991:71). The latter is con-
sistent with the emphasis placed by the theory of change approach on
adapting in response to emerging issues and decisions made by partners
and other stakeholders (Rogers, 2014; Vogel, 2012).
Adaptation requires decision-making closer to programme imple-
mentation, and ongoing analysis of the changing context. But while
the centrality of learning and knowledge to this and to development
strategies and practice in general has been recognised for some time
(Ferguson et al., 2010; King & McGrath, 2004), one of the major chal-
lenges faced in the sector is that not enough ongoing learning gets
recorded and even less is shared (Mougeot, 2017).
The main tension that arises in ID programmes relates to adaptive
management on the one hand, and the dominant paradigm of RBM
on the other. Jarzabkowski (2004) identified a similar tension in the
strategy domain, which she characterised as a tension between adap-
tive and recursive tendencies. The recursiveness inherent in practice
is constructed at multiple levels of social interaction from the actor
to the institution, according to Jarzabkowski (2004). At the same time
adaptive practices arise from the interactions between these levels, par-
ticularly in the interactions within micro contexts and between micro
and macro contexts. In literature dealing with tensions, the compet-
ing demands are often expressed as opposing elements, such as stability
and change, exploitation and exploration, and efficiency and flexibility
(Gaim & Wåhlin, 2016; Lövstål & Jontoft, 2017; Smith & Lewis, 2011).
Taking this approach, we can identify key opposing elements at ac-
tor, programme and institutional level (see Fig. 1). At actor level there
is a tension between learning to shape programme activities and re-
porting in accordance with intended project and programme outcomes.
The type of learning referred to here is adaptive learning associated
with first-order change by actors. At programme level it must be sup-
ported by what Thomas and Allen (2006) refer to as “a generative
learning capacity that can enhance the organisation’s creative capacity
through second-order change” (p.127). This is linked to the potential to
J. Lannon and J.N. Walsh
Fig. 1. Opposing elements in ID programme environments.
identify and leverage new knowledge through processes of knowledge
exploration.
At an institutional level the ID sector consists of a development es-
tablishment that is made up of the United Nations and its agencies,
the World Bank and associated regional multilateral banks, regional
institutions such as the European Union, as well as state-level institu-
tions (Battersby & Roy, 2017). While development assistance is widely
perceived as a central function of governments and intergovernmental
agencies, Battersky and Roy (2017) note that the non-state sector has
historically led the way in providing aid to people that governments
choose to ignore or who are afflicted by natural and human-made dis-
asters. INGOs operate within this non-state sector, and as such are sub-
jected to the economic, gender, ethnic, business, religious, political and
other social systems that affect the adoption of particular strategic prac-
tices (Jarzabkowski, 2004).
The tensions in the micro contexts in which action is highly localised
(for example, a project officer in an NGO) are connected all the way
up to the macro (institutional) context that “provide broad commonali-
ties of action” (Jarzabkowski, 2004:530). In between there is interplay
with tensions at programme level. These include a tension between the
need for knowledge exploration and knowledge exploitation, which has
been identified in a range of literature (Agostini, Nosella & Filippini,
2017; Almahendra & Ambos, 2015; Garcias, Dalmasso & Sardas, 2015;
Knight & Harvey, 2015). There is also a tension between localisation i.e.
strengthening the capacity and accountability of local actors (Glennie &
Rabinowitz, 2013), and managerialism which favours the application of
generic managerial techniques and knowledge (Klikauer, 2015).
Contu and Girei (2014) characterised the tensions that exist within
ID partnerships as linked to the unequal relations between Northern
based INGOs and local actors (organisations and communities). Echoing
this, Kontinen (2016) referred to an epistemological divide involving
multiple “vocabularies of practice” that are characteristic of attempts to
reconcile global expertise and local knowledge (Corbin, Mittelmark &
Lie, 2011). The dominant vocabulary of practice, project management
(Kontinen, 2016), reflects the institutional tendency towards projects
and programmes that are constituted in pre-defined programme cycles
and stages. This is what Jarzabkowski (2004) refers to as a “problem
of recursiveness” that “obscures the means by which practice adapts”
(p.530). It is in contrast to the community vocabulary that emphasises
490
International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 486–499
the tendency of communities to employ rationalities other than those the
intervention model was based on (Kontinen, 2016). Theory of change is
at its best, according to Vogel (2012), when it combines these.
Responses to tensions can be either defensive or active
(Jarzabkowski et al., 2013). The former provides short-term re-
lief, allowing the tension to be overcome temporarily, whereas the
latter seeks to deal with it on a longer term basis. A number of defensive
responses have been identified. These include repression which can
involve denial and blocking awareness, and pretending that the tension
does not exist (Gaim & Wåhlin, 2016; Lewis, 2000); splitting, which
may be spatial or temporal (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Gaim &
Wåhlin, 2016; Lewis, 2000; Poole & Van de Ven, 1989); suppression,
whereby a one-sided response to the tension favours one element at
the expense of the other (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013); regression, in
which security is provided through reverting to previously held beliefs;
and reaction formation, which involves excessively using practices
that oppose the alternative perspective (Lewis, 2000). On the other
hand, Jarzabkowski et al. (2013) categorise acceptance, confrontation
and transcendence as active responses. Acceptance avoids potentially
contentious debates, while confrontation involves discussing and
critiquing the tension in order to develop better ways of working.
With transcendence, the response involves rethinking the relationship
between competing demands and exploiting the complementarity
and interdependence between them (Lewis, 2000; Poole & Van de
Ven, 1989).
In seeking to understand how programme management can and
should respond to the tensions that exist in partnership based ID pro-
grammes (Fig. 1) it is necessary to get a deeper understanding of how
they play out. The empirical work described in the next section looks at
evidence from three similar ID programmes, and describes the responses
that were adopted to the tensions that existed.
3. Methodology
The research uses a multiple interpretive case study approach to
develop a deep understanding of partnership based ID programmes.
Case studies provide a means to examine phenomena of interest in real
world contexts (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007), and as such researchers
have used them to examine various tensions that occur in project
J. Lannon and J.N. Walsh
environments. Contexts have included sectors such as global construc-
tion (Cicmil & Marshall, 2005; Labelle, de Rouffignac, Lemire, Bredil-
let & Barnabé, 2019; Mahalingam & Levitt, 2007; Szentes, 2018)
and engineering (Liu, Wang & Sheng, 2012), as well as innovative
(Rouyre & Fernandez, 2019) and research and development projects
(Biedenbach, 2011). There are examples of research focusing on ten-
sions between project management and creative activities (Bérubé &
Gauthier, 2017), control and flexibility (Szentes, 2018), explore-exploit
tensions in learning processes (Garcias et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2012), and
knowledge sharing (Rouyre & Fernandez, 2019). Case study research has
also been used to identify tensions within the project management disci-
pline itself (Hodgson, Paton & Muzio, 2015; Paton & Hodgson, 2016). In
addition, Biedenbach (2011) examined tensions between dynamic and
multi-project capabilities while Kislov, Hodgson and Boaden (2016) con-
sidered tensions within collaborative partnerships.
The multiple case study approach enables a replication logic through
systematic analysis of the cases (Yin, 2009). It also creates more robust
theory than single cases, as the research is more deeply grounded in
varied empirical evidence from a multiplicity of contexts (Eisenhardt &
Graebner, 2007). The case studies for this research all involve an INGO
that delivers development programmes in partnership with local NGOs.
The INGO has been involved in development and humanitarian work
for several decades. Nowadays it works with local partners to support
communities in over 20 developing countries. Its programmes are based
on addressing three critical issues that underpin poverty and injustice;
these are lack of access to, and control of, resources; the oppression of
women; and humanitarian crises. Within its programmes there are mul-
tiple integrated interventions at different levels including service deliv-
ery, policy and advocacy, and capacity-building. Programme funding
cycles are typically three to five years.
The INGO’s theory of change is based on integration between pro-
gramme initiatives at individual, community, organisational, and soci-
etal level in order to have impact in the countries where they work. The
programme approach is seen as enhancing their ability to ensure real im-
pact on people’s lives. The INGO seeks to promote learning within the
organisation and across programmes; and to adopt an analysis based
approach to planning and monitoring their work. The programme ap-
proach is also seen as a way to bring real benefit to partners through the
facilitation of linkages and sharing of experiences.
Case choice was based on a combination of convenience and oppor-
tunity to identify variation. One of the researchers was already familiar
with the work of the INGO and could call on staff at their headquarters
to help with access to suitable case studies. The three programmes cho-
sen were all linked to one area of thematic focus for the INGO, resource
rights, which aims to enable communities to access, control and pro-
tect their local natural resources, including land and water. They were
located in Kenya, Zimbabwe and Uganda. In each of the programmes,
the INGO works with local NGOs that undertake specific interventions
or projects in collaboration with communities. A total of eight NGOs
participated in the research; their areas of expertise included providing
sustainable land use and water management systems to communities;
access to resources for poor, disadvantaged and marginalized commu-
nities; ecological land use management; implementation of resilience
and livelihoods projects; provision of training and legal advice to vic-
tims of human rights violations; and mediating land disputes and other
related conflicts within communities. A key element in their selection
as participants in this research was the fact that they had all worked in
partnership with the INGO for at least one funding cycle.
Working together the INGO and NGOs aim to bring about positive
lasting change in the communities they serve. By working in partnership
they strive to avoid implementing one-size fits-all projects or solutions
devised from a Northern perspective. Instead they listen to what peo-
ple need and give them support, ownership and control over how the
problems they face are solved.
In previous research the units of analysis chosen when ex-
amining project-related tensions were at the inter-organisational
491
International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 486–499
Table 1
INGO Headquarters Interviews.
SM1 Senior Management
SM2 Senior Management
SM3 Senior Management (Fundraising/Support)
PR1 Management (Programmes)
PR1 Management (Programmes)
AD1 Programme Advisor
AD2 Programme Advisor
SI1 Strategy / Impact
SI2 Strategy / Impact
SI3 Strategy / Impact
SI4 Strategy / Impact
(Kislov et al., 2016; Szentes, 2018), organisational (Bérubé & Gau-
thier, 2017) and project levels (Biedenbach, 2011; Kislov et al., 2016;
Liu et al., 2012; Rouyre & Fernandez, 2019). In this research the unit of
analysis is partnership based ID programmes.
The research took place over a two-year period, starting in June
2016. While the primary intention of the engagement with the INGO was
on strengthening knowledge sharing in the context of its programmes,
the need to address tensions emerged at an early stage. Data collec-
tion was therefore focused on identifying and understanding these ten-
sions. A mix of qualitative methods drawing from multiple sources of
evidence was employed. Data were collected using focus group discus-
sions, as well as unstructured and semi-structured interviews that were
recorded and transcribed. To increase validity, data from these sources
were supplemented and triangulated with participation in meetings as
an observer, workshops and review of programme/project documenta-
tion.
Prior to conducting the case study research, a number of focus group
discussions took place at sectoral level, in order to get a better un-
derstanding at the institutional level. Focus groups are widely used
within the social sciences as a tool to inform policy and practice, par-
ticularly in areas like strategic planning and programme evaluation
(Hennink, 2007). Our focus group discussions took place at a sectoral
workshop held in June 2016, and were used to deepen understanding of
the tensions and challenges that exist across the ID sector and to identify
topics and issues for subsequent discussion and elaboration. There were
three separate focus groups, with a combined total of 25 participants
from six different INGOs. The focus groups were divided based on the
participants’ role and experience. One was primarily made up of senior
managers (FG-1), another had programme managers and staff (FG-2),
and the third consisted of other staff (FG-3).
Within the INGO, interviews took place at multiple levels, initially at
headquarters and then in each of the three participating countries. The
strategic perspective was explored through a series of interviews with
senior INGO management, thematic and programme advisors, and staff
working in the area of strategy and impact. These interviews, as shown
in Table 1, were conducted during the second half of 2016. They were
semi-structured in nature, and focused on the tensions identified from
the initial literature review and the sectoral workshop. On average, the
interviews were approximately one hour long and were conducted at
the organisation’s headquarters.
The main part of the research took place in the programme settings
in Kenya, Zimbabwe and Uganda between May 2017 and April 2018. It
consisted of interviews with staff in the INGO country offices, and with
staff in the participating NGO partners who were implementing projects
in each country. These are shown in Table 2. Here the interviews were
a mix of semi-structured and unstructured. The focus was on the chal-
lenges and tensions already identified, and how these were confronted
in practice.
The INGO programme interviews were supplemented by a two-day
workshop on knowledge management and learning in each of the three
country offices. These were facilitated by one of the researchers and a
strategy officer from the INGO’s headquarters. Between 6 and 12 people
J. Lannon and J.N. Walsh International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 486–499

Table 2
Programme interviews.

INGO Partners

Kenya K-CO1: Management Partner 1 K-NGO1–1: Director

K-CO2: Programme/M&E staff Partner 2 K-NGO2–1: Manager
K-CO3: Programme/M&E staff K-NGO2–2: Project officer
Zimbabwe Z-CO1: Management Partner 1 Z-NGO1–1: Director
Z-CO2: Management Partner 2 Z-NGO2–1: Programme Manager
Z-CO3: Programme/M&E staff Partner 3 Z-NGO3–1: Project Officer
Z-CO4: Programme/M&E staff Partner 4 Z-NGO4–1: Director
Z-CO5: Programme/M&E staff
Z-CO6: Programme/M&E staff
Z-CO7: Programme/M&E staff
Uganda U-CO1: Management Partner 1 U-NGO1–1: Manager
U-CO2: Management Partner 2 U-NGO2–1: Manager
U-NGO3–1: Programme Officer
U-NGO2–3: Project consultant

took part in each workshop; these included programme managers and
officers, M&E officers, and other programme support staff.
In order to gain a deeper understanding of how the tensions at pro-
gramme level played out, focus group discussions were also held with
the communities with which the NGOs worked directly. This research
method is widely used to engage with ID beneficiaries (Billson, 2008)
and has been found to be a reliable technique for collecting data in situ-
ations when time is limited (Maynard-Tucker, 2000). The focus groups
consisted of between 4 and 10 people, and in each country separate
group discussions were held with men and women. This was done to en-
sure open discussion and full participation, and to enable the researchers
to explore the experiences and perspectives of both genders. Interpreters
were used in these focus group discussions.
Some researchers that examined project tensions, such as
Hodgson et al. (2015) and Paton and Hodgson (2016), have used
open, axial and selective coding following Strauss and Corbin (1998).
This allows codes which could then be grouped into more coherent
categories to emerge, rather than being defined in advance. As our re-
search was based on the concepts contained in Fig. 1 which we derived
from the extant literature, we followed a different coding procedure.
Following Biedenbach (2011) who examined organisational capabilities
in projects, and Kislov et al. (2016) who investigated collaboration
through partnerships, we used template analysis (King, 1998, 2004).
Our analysis was based on a pre-existing list of codes representing
concepts related to the research question, as presented in Fig. 1. These
comprised our template. Such templates, according to King (2004),
provides more structure than open coding, while giving researchers
the option to add, delete and modify the initial codes that comprise
the template. Like Biedenbach (2011) and Kislov et al. (2016), each
case was coded separately to identify any distinctiveness between
cases, followed by a cross-case analysis to identify commonalities
and explain differences. This form of cross-case analysis provided
Szentes (2018) with examples of tensions occurring in several projects,
with insights of similarities emerging.
4. Findings & analysis
The INGO at the centre of the three case studies sees partnership
based programmes as the means by which to achieve lasting change,
with people empowered to act on their own behalf, challenge injustice,
realize their human rights, and be agents of their own development. Lo-
cal partnerships are supported to deliver on appropriate interventions
within the organisation’s global programme themes. To enable them to
do this the INGO provides funding and technical support for projects, ad-
vocacy and networking, and organisational capacity building. In return
the local partners add value through their understanding of local issues,
and by informing the INGO’s advocacy, campaigning and development
education work.
4.1. Tensions
The main themes to emerge from the data, when coded against the
initial recursive –adaptive tendencies are presented in Fig. 2.
Since the objective of this study is to examine how programme man-
agement responds to tensions, rather than to provide an exhaustive anal-
ysis of the tensions that exist, we focus on illustrative examples of the
tensions that arise at each level. These were all provided by informants
in response to general questions relating to the concepts identified in
Fig. 1. Drawing on quotations that are representative of the overall
tenor of the interviews and focus group discussions, the next sections
explain how the tensions exist in practice and how they are responded
to.
4.1.1. Learning – reporting
Connecting people in order to facilitate peer learning and the co-
creation of new knowledge is seen as important within the sector. As
one sectoral focus group participant put it, the emphasis needs to be on
"connections rather than collections" (FG-1, Participant A). Within the
INGO–NGO partnerships, a willingness to collaborate and learn was also
found to exist in all three countries:
“we would regularly in programme areas at the country level bring part-
ners together to share learning, to share experiences and to learn from
each other. To make sure that the knowledge you have in countries is
shared, and the knowledge that one partner has is useful to another.”
(Z-CO2)
This collaborative learning is not always possible however. As one
INGO country office staff member noted, “sometimes people are under
time pressure and it is difficult. There is also a cost in the convening.”
(Z-CO7).
At an individual actor level, the reporting-learning tension is evident
primarily in the need to make choices about how individual project and
programme officers use their time. Priority is given to reporting on pro-
grammes at the expense of reflecting on and capturing what has been
learned. This is evident within the NGOs
“We’ve now become very realistic in our approach. ‘This is the contract
you signed. This is the work that you said you were going to do. These
are the things that they’ve asked you to report on.’ And so you make sure
that you have covered those areas.” (Z-NGO2–1)
One INGO staff member reported that she felt she was “stagnating”
in her job because of lack of learning. Programme officers’ work is pri-
marily donor driven, with learning becoming secondary to reporting and

492
J. Lannon and J.N. Walsh
Fig. 2. Main themes to emerge from data analysis.
to what a number of informants referred to as “mandatory deliverables”
on programmes.
“I don’t think we’re looking at it as ’What have we learned?’ or take
that time after we’ve fulfilled that obligation of reporting, and now taking
time out to reflect on it. We don’t do that step, really. That’s done by the
partners, I would say.” (Z-CO4)
Nonetheless, within the local NGOs, the technicalities of reporting
and M&E are also seen as limiting and constraining people and “killing
the work” (Z-NGO1–1). One NGO director described the difference be-
tween writing an activity report that would act as a source document for
the report the INGO wanted after a field trip, and “observation notes”
that she saw as much more relevant and necessary for the organisation’s
ongoing work. Another NGO director spoke of how a lot of what they
learn “never gets shared or gets moved up to a level where it could in-
form [the INGO’s] practices in other contexts” (Z-NGO4–1). The main
reason is that despite the recognition of the knowledge intensive nature
of the sector “it is seen as overhead, and donors do not fund that”. As
a result, the NGO director said that her organisation has had to become
“realistic” with their INGO partners, reporting only on what they said
they were going to do and what they’ve been asked to report on.
The evidence from all three case studies demonstrates that at the
individual actor (micro) level similar tensions exist in both the local
NGOs and the INGO. It also demonstrates a willingness to respond to
the tension by actively confronting it. This is reflected in the views of
one programme staff member who said in relation to the expectation of
learning at programme level through partner meetings:
493
International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 486–499
“the question here would be ’Should [we] be convening for these kinds
of conversations to take place?’ Or should they be happening once the
program facilitates their live developments between the partners?” (Z-
CO7)
Discussions like these, alongside other examples of “micro-
communities of activity” (Jarzabkowski, 2004:538) that result in effec-
tive learning demonstrate a willingness for partnerships to move beyond
defensive responses to the tension. The willingness of the INGO’s senior
management to engage in discussion around how to improve learning
as a strategic objective for the organisation adds further strength to the
willingness to confront it effectively.
4.1.2. Knowledge exploration - Exploitation
Within the ID sector, searching for new solutions to development
challenges is encouraged. There is a “natural desire to know how some-
body else is tackling the same thing” (SI4). At programme level, this
desire to explore new ways of doing things is constrained however:
“Some of the things that you might have wanted to do, you can’t start
because you are in a particular framework. So some things have to be
[done] slowly and incrementally. As you are going, you find ways to
adjust and tweak within the framework you are operating in.” (Z-CO6)
The primary sources of knowledge relating to ID projects are at com-
munity level where innovation and learning happens regularly and rou-
tinely. However, from a programme point of view, there are difficulties
capturing this contextual, local knowledge. As one INGO informant put
it,
J. Lannon and J.N. Walsh
“Most of our knowledge around community projects is within the com-
munity. They really have so many of the solutions that are not fitting into
our results framework” (SI2)
Local NGOs engage in ongoing processes of knowledge exploration.
As one NGO put it, “we document, we share, tell what works and what
[the community] have tested.” (U-NGO2–1) However the capacity to
capture knowledge varies within NGOs. One of their greatest weak-
nesses, according to another NGO, is the lack of systems to capture
project knowledge. Consequently, a lot of the knowledge gained does
not get transferred to the INGO “because it’s not part of the contrac-
tual grant or because the partner does not have the time or capacity
to do it” (Z-CO5). While emergent learning and innovation, i.e. knowl-
edge exploration, are natural at community level, the exploitation of the
knowledge gained is constrained at programme level. At the initial sec-
toral workshop there was a sense that there isn’t enough emphasis on
local knowledge re-use; as one participant put it,
"Research and learning is at the global level, and there is no bottom-up
feeding of knowledge … we need to create capillary action to draw [it]
up." (Sectoral workshop participant)
Even at a strategic level, where country strategies need to be shaped
on the basis of contextual analysis, there is often insufficient en-
gagement with local perspectives. As another sectoral workshop par-
ticipant put it, even if a country does a strong contextual analysis,
the global/institutional analysis overrides it. Failure to make context-
specific insights available and accessible to others is sometimes linked
to cultural influences on how knowledge is shared, as well as to the
prioritisation of ’reportable’ knowledge to meet donor or organisational
needs. At the same time, the potential to exploit project knowledge at
programme level is enhanced through the INGO’s “micro-linkages with
partners” (SM2). As the same HQ manager put it, “we do have an ap-
proach, we have strategy, we have value, we have ways of working, and
we have a model”. Targeted adjustments are made to the knowledge that
the INGO brings; a case in point is the adaptation of tools and indicators
of success for the local context through consultation between the INGO
CO and the local NGO:
“We have what are called mandatory indicators, that are coming in and
they have already been agreed at global level, and as countries, we are
expected in a way to customise some of those indicators. Especially if
we feel that there are bodies of work that we are doing that warrant
additional indicators. But we’ll still retain those mandatory indicators.
So, I see a lot of adaptation that has to be done and customisation, so that
the indicators that we are implementing reflects more of a local context
than the global overview.” (Z-CO4)
Within programmes, the inter-organisational relationships between
the INGO and its local partners supports exploitative and explorative
knowledge-sharing. The practice based knowledge gained from projects
is combined with the INGO’s professional expertise in its areas of the-
matic focus and programme management. Knowledge exploration and
exploitation is thus a duality (Pellegrinelli et al., 2015), with partners
bringing different forms of knowledge that are necessarily intertwined in
order to deliver successful projects. The INGO provides process knowl-
edge on how to do development, while local partners provide deep in-
sights into what works best in the contexts in which projects are being
delivered.
4.1.3. Localisation – managerialism
While the INGO rejects a one-size-fits-all approach to development,
it follows a standard approach to programme cycle management. Its pro-
gramme managers and teams in the country offices also utilise a range
of organisational systems and tools provided by the organisation’s head-
quarters to help their local partners manage their projects. According to
one of the INGO’s advisors,
494
International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 486–499
“With partners we aim to play a facilitating role but are burdened with
these external demands and so sometimes have to step in as the manager
… we plug gaps in project management that our partners are unable or
unwilling to fill – for example, risk management.” (AD1)
Nonetheless while the INGO has standard templates for key processes
like programme design and M&E, these are optional for partners. This
is seen as one of the most valuable aspects of working with the INGO
from a partner perspective; as one director put it, they “don’t come
with prescribed solutions” (Z-NGO4–1). Local NGOs adapt and mod-
ify policies like child protection and safety to suit local needs within
their projects. In doing so they typically take input from a range of
stakeholders, including communities. Despite this, partners perceive the
INGO more as a grant agency than a partner co-developing programmes
with them. They see value in their relationship with the INGO as it
builds their capacity to access more funding. As one INGO informant
put it, investment in helping partners improve their systems in areas
like finance and M&E, enables them “become viable options for other
donors” (SI1).
The evidence suggests an ongoing tension between the need to use
standard tools and rigorous programming standards, while providing
the space for local partners to implement solutions in the most appro-
priate way. The programme based approach to development was a move
away from “putting constraints on partners” and “dictating to the part-
ner what to do” (FG-2, Participant C). However, there is still a sensi-
tivity around the international partner going to the community, largely
because their role is perceived as different to that of the project im-
plementers. While international NGOs are often seen as proxy donors,
the INGO in the research sees itself as “not just another donor, we’re a
partner. If you’re a partner then there’s trust and we’re working on this
together” (SM1). This trust involves allowing the partner to use tools
that are most appropriate in the field.
Within programmes, a splitting response that prevents interaction is
likely to exacerbate tension (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009) and is not
consistent with the partnership approach to development. Partnership
requires an active response built on trusting relationships that are ev-
ident in the willingness of the INGO to allow local NGOs adapt and
modify their standards and policies. The approaches found in the case
studies indicate that these active responses do occur.
4.1.4. Adaptive programming - RBM
The INGO invests in research and learning around its programme
areas and strategies at institutional level. However, a lot of the learn-
ing and adaptation that takes place within programmes does not con-
tribute to organisational learning. In one of the INGO country office
workshops questions were raised about the type of knowledge and the
knowledge sources that are valued. One participant observed that pro-
gramme knowledge is often used to justify rather than inform decisions.
Eyben et al. (2015) note the importance of understanding marginal-
ized people not simply as beneficiaries of technical solutions, but
through the work of participatory development projects, as architects
of a politics of equity and democratization. The adaptation of the stan-
dard indicators should therefore be a participatory process, facilitated
by bringing all the relevant actors together at programme level, starting
at the initial stages of the PCM.
For local partners, a key consideration is the amount of strain the
tools and processes being used place on them. As the director of one
partner organisation put it, “what matters the most … from a partner
perspective, is the amount of burden that the process creates” (Z-NGO2–
1). She stressed the need for flexibility in relation to tools (for example
M&E) and processes – “the issue is that if you are not flexible in your
tools you will do yourself a disservice because you then don’t actually
know what the project means”. The end result, she said, is that a project
can be incorrectly categorised as a success or a failure if tools are not
adapted based on a proper understanding of the context and environ-
ment.
J. Lannon and J.N. Walsh
While decision making at the project level is informed by local
knowledge, and tools are adapted to suit the context, broad strategies on
programmes are determined by headquarters. This is driven to a large
extent by the dominant paradigms like RBM, largely driven by institu-
tional donors. The key challenge for INGOs, as a programme advisor put
it, is that
“On the one hand, donors speak of creating space for change, risk, inno-
vation, if we can evidence the strength of our proposal. On the other hand,
big donors are shifting increasingly to commercial, profit driven, contract
managers, or big INGOs who can operate under strict interpretations of
planned results.” (AD1)
In culturally adaptive organisations, the role of senior manage-
ment is to support and align strategic initiatives arising at other levels
(Jarzabkowski, 2004). At an institutional or macro level, planned results
may provide stability. But the evidence from the research suggests that
the potential to confront the tensions that exist at actor and programme
levels is not reflected in what happens at the macro level. There, the re-
sponse to tensions is much more closely aligned to the range of defensive
strategies identified in the literature.
4.2. Responding to tensions within programmes
The capacity and competency of the local partners to manage
projects is a key aspect of ID programmes. It is essential to ensure donor
reporting and accountability requirements are met. Ensuring that tar-
gets are met, methodologies are adhered to (after adaptation), and risks
are managed all require elements of good management. As one INGO
advisor put it:
“It’s important not to shy away from project management language too
much. Design, scheduling, budgeting, resourcing, quality assurance, etc.
are all related to project management both generally and in develop-
ment/humanitarian work. These are essential elements to PCM. What’s
lacking is perhaps a clarity of roles and responsibilities around these PM
elements and ensuring that rather than dominate the PCM space, they are
built to be conducive to better facilitation of change. Project management
is but one element of facilitating change” (AD1)
Choosing partners with the capacity to project manage effectively
can therefore help to ensure the operational effectiveness of the inter-
vention. With that in mind, the INGO carries out an assessment of an
NGO’s capabilities prior to partnering with them. It needs to be able to
trust its partners to not only make the right decisions but also to deliver
the expected outcomes. However, this can also contribute to a narrow-
ing of the field, and the construction of what could be perceived on the
one hand as increased civil society capacity and on the other as a new
local elite.
To affect the desired changes, collaborations based on equality, with
different actors bringing different strengths, is essential. A July 2017
report on localisation in practice which was commissioned by the INGO
points out that localisation requires a shift in power relations between
actors, both in terms of strategic decision-making and control of re-
sources. Moving from a situation where the project management vo-
cabulary of practice takes precedence, to one of change facilitation that
balances strategy, management, co-creation and flexibility at all levels
is therefore crucial. This means ensuring that local partners have the
capacity to manage their projects but are not overburdened by donor
demands (a key element of the INGO’s partnership approach). It re-
quires participation and collaboration from the start of the programme
cycle, as partners work together to design, plan and implement solutions
that are relevant and effective in local contexts. Establishing trust and
maintaining effective communicative and reflective spaces within the
programme are equally vital in order to achieve the desired outcomes
and impact. This is helped by putting in place long-term, multi-annual
agreements with partners where possible, and by encouraging partners
to seek other institutional donors to support their work. This has the
495
International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 486–499
added advantage of creating horizontal connections that are conducive
to learning.
The articulation of concerns over the types of knowledge that are val-
ued in the sector is symptomatic of the unequal power relations that exist
there. Power can be visible (for example, observable decision-making
mechanisms), hidden (shaping or influencing the agenda behind the
scenes, for example, through bribery) or invisible (norms and beliefs,
socialisation, ideology, etc.), as outlined in the INGO’s PCM programme
development documents. It exists at all levels, including global, regional,
national, local, community and household (Pantazidou, 2012). As such,
there are “internal dynamics” and “external politics” to contend with
in ID programmes, as one INGO manager observed. Building relation-
ships is essential in order to navigate these, but if programme staff have
limited time and space the relationships cannot be developed.
5. Discussion
The research undertaken demonstrates the value of active responses
to tensions between recursive and adaptive tendencies in ID pro-
grammes. Confronting the tensions enables actors to develop better
ways of working that lead to positive long term benefits. In the con-
text of programmes, we characterise the approach needed to make this
successful as project facilitation. This is defined as a competency and
trust based approach that supports strategic learning while devolving
decision-making power to project implementers. Programme level learn-
ing is enabled by providing appropriate spaces (either physical or vir-
tual) for horizontal knowledge flows within the programme, in line with
the contextual needs. These spaces also facilitate the development of the
capacity and competencies needed for project implementation through
the sharing and refinement of process knowledge (such as M&E frame-
works). It is consistent with the strategic management perspective on
programme management that conceives programmes as frameworks or
structures, and is intimately bound up with and determined by context
rather than governed by a common set of transferable principles and
processes (Pellegrinelli et al., 2007).
As an active response to the tensions that exist in programmes,
project facilitation directly addresses and works through the sources
of tension (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009). Providing actors with the
time to engage in adaptive behaviour such as reflexivity, knowl-
edge exploration, and social interaction with communities of practice
(Jarzabkowski, 2004) is essential to this process. For project facilita-
tion to be successful it needs an environment that is fully committed
and conducive to principles like participation and empowerment. As
Bond and Hulme (1999), cited in Ika and Hodgson (2014) observe, a fun-
damental reconfiguration of the involvement of stakeholders is needed
in programme-objective setting, design, implementation and monitor-
ing, leading to a redistribution of power and influence over decision-
making.. Knowledge sharing and learning, based on long-term relation-
ships and ongoing dialogue, is central to the concept, as is the co-
creation of further knowledge. The approach taken in the case studies
examined recognises that certain things need to be managed in order
to meet institutional demands for more rigorous and robust evidence,
and that the tools already developed within the sector play an impor-
tant role. But by recognising different knowledge strengths (in partic-
ular contextual, local knowledge) and by encouraging different forms
of learning at project and programme level it goes some way towards
addressing failures to value relevant and actionable knowledge within
the programmes.
Effective change needs innovation, space, time and an appetite
for risk to test new models and approaches. In contrast to the nar-
rower and more instrumental concept of project management that
embraces measures of success and sees people as resources (Cicmil &
O’Laocha, 2016), project facilitation is collaborative and relationship
based. In terms of a response to the tensions that exist it is can thus be
described as confrontation. And while contemporary ID partnerships
are often characterised by management practices that have been
J. Lannon and J.N. Walsh
developed in a unidirectional fashion with little consultation and
input from Southern NGOs (Contu & Girei, 2014), the facilitative
approach allows all participants’ knowledge to be valued equally
but differently. In doing so it goes beyond confrontation to transcen-
dence, and provides a basis for addressing the power imbalances
that exist in ID partnerships. While Jarzabkowski (2004) notes
that existing power imbalances are prone to recursive
practice, project facilitation can go some way towards addressing
this by treating elements of tension as a duality i.e. interdependent and
mutually enabling rather than mutually exclusive and incompatible.
Deeper understanding of the interplay between the levels at which
tensions play out is also helpful when responding to disconnects be-
tween project delivery and organisational strategy. Recursiveness is
constructed at multiple levels and linked to power imbalances, while
adaptive practices emerge from the interactions between these levels
(Jarzabkowski, 2004). In recognising this, project facilitation provides a
means to successfully manage performance-focused and task-orientated
projects within programmes.
As a concept or approach, project facilitation has relevance for
programme management in sectors other than ID. Finding active re-
sponses to the tensions that exist within programmes offers greater
potential for effective delivery of long term benefits than defensive
strategies like repression, temporal or spatial splitting, or suppression
(Jarzabkowski et al., 2013; Lewis, 2000) that can occur in programme
environments. While this is consistent with the social constructionist
view of programmes and programme management (Pellegrinelli, 2011),
it broadens our understanding by emphasising the need to actively con-
sider how the tensions inherent in programmes are responded to. Project
facilitation acknowledges the tensions between recursive and adaptive
characteristics of projects, programmes and institutions, while also pay-
ing attention to the interplay between micro and macro contextual levels
and the challenges and tensions therein.
5.1. Implications for partnerships
Looking beyond international development we see applicability for
the concept of project facilitation in other partnership based programme
and project contexts. As noted already, decision-making and change sit-
uations involving multiple stakeholders with conflicting needs and ex-
pectations can be challenging. This is particularly true in the case of
partnerships. Effective programmes depend on motivation, relationships
and cooperation between partners (Tuczek & Frank, 2016), as well as
shared values and vision. Power dynamics and asymmetries have been
shown to have a profound impact on partnership performance in areas
like health (Scholz, Bocking, Platania-Phung, Banfield & Happell, 2018),
research (Madsen & O’Mullan, 2018), and business in general (Dewulf
& Elbers, 2017). Yet work on partnership based projects in particular
tends to focus on identifying common goals and managing conflicting
interests (Mack, 2016), with the impact power differentials have on the
formation and long-term success of partnerships largely marginalised.
Drawing on agency theory, Parker, Dressel, Chevers and Zep-
petella (2018) note that in international development PPPs that incor-
porate government, NGOs and private corporations, projects cannot be
carried out efficiently without trust between key stakeholders. There
are conflicting goals between principals and agents, resulting in the
need to reduce self-serving behaviour and ensure trade-offs between
the cost of measuring behaviour and of measuring outcomes. Looking
beyond ID, Biygautane, Neesham and Al-Yahya (2019) note that cur-
rent infrastructure PPP literature in general is focused rather narrowly
on a project level of analysis. They highlight the importance of under-
standing how the social, organizational and political factors that come
into play at institutional level influence projects. From a sustainabil-
ity point of view, the emphasis within PPPs on measurability has been
highlighted as problematic (Hueskes, Verhoest & Block, 2017), while
Koops, Bosch-Rekveldt, Bakker and Hertogh (2017) identify ambiguity,
496
International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 486–499
conflict of interest, triangular relationships, unclear purpose and orga-
nizational context as leading to tensions between project partners.
Our study suggests that project facilitation offers a strategic, holis-
tic and productive avenue to explore to address many of these issues,
particularly when it comes to what Jeffares et al. (2013) call coordi-
native and connective performance. The former is linked to the ability
of partners to sustain the relationship despite differences in interests
and motivations, while the latter refers to the manner in which partners
interrelate with each other, developing new forms of value-added in the
process.
PPPs combine the strengths of private actors, such as inno-
vation, technical knowledge and skills, managerial efficiency and
entrepreneurial spirit, with those of public actors, including social
responsibility, social justice, public accountability and local knowl-
edge, in order to create an enabling environment for delivering high
quality infrastructure and services (Roehrich, Lewis & George, 2014).
These actors represent contrasting tendencies that are predominately
recursive and adaptive in nature. As such, they are likely to benefit
from the adoption of a project facilitation approach involving the type
of active responses adopted in ID partnership programmes.
5.2. Managerial implications
Lycett et al. (2004) explain that in programmes, tensions can arise
between a task-orientated view of projects and a strategy-focused and
often emergent wider organisational view. They also warn that rigid hi-
erarchical programme management arrangements can lead to a negative
spiral of bureaucracy and control (recursiveness). In examining the ten-
sions that exist in ID programmes we see that active responses that allow
for the integration of different forms of knowledge and activities across
projects, and between project and programme levels, goes some way to
addressing the tensions while providing a basis for adaptation and learn-
ing. Recognition that command-and-control management (Gorod, Hallo
& Nguyen, 2018; Smith & Bititci, 2017) is likely to be too rigid to adapt
to changes in the environment is becoming more established in main-
stream management literature. The need for continuous learning, ad-
justment and adaptation is gaining prominence in the area of benefits
realisation management (Dalcher, 2017; Tillmann, Tzortzopoulos & For-
moso, 2010). There the focus is on defining projects and programmes
by mapping the benefits, linking to organisational strategy by produc-
ing a convincing business case, getting stakeholders on board, agreeing
the measures used to encourage the desired behaviours, and monitor-
ing progress to assess the ultimate success of the project or programme
(Bradley, 2016).
Lessons from ID sector programme management highlight the impor-
tance of recognising and utilising the strengths that different stakehold-
ers can bring, particularly in partnership situations. Theory of change
makes the connections between outcomes, and articulates why one out-
come is needed to achieve another (Vargas et al., 2016). Providing the
time and the appropriate space to make these connections leads to in-
creased transparency and meaningful collaboration and ensures that or-
ganisations can not only do things right but also do the right things.
6. Conclusions
The ID sector has seen a shift from the management of single projects
to the management of programmes aimed at achieving desired social
change. It reflects a broader shift from narrow execution-oriented man-
agement of a single project to a more strategic management of projects
in complex, ever-changing and uncertain environments. In adopting a
theory of change approach that identifies long-term goals and the as-
sumptions behind them, and explicitly defines outcomes, while ensur-
ing that the tools needed for planning and monitoring and evaluation
are in place, the ID sector is moving towards a more transparent and
balanced approach to change. Tensions and challenges still exist, but
by facilitating rather than managing projects, adaptability and learning
J. Lannon and J.N. Walsh
are supported. We introduce the concept of project facilitation to char-
acterise this support.
The key lesson for project management from this study is the need
to find active responses to tensions in programme environments. When
decision-making and change situations involve multiple stakeholders
with conflicting needs and expectations, as they invariably do in pro-
gramme environments (Thiry, 2002), defensive strategies like splitting,
suppression and repression may reduce ambiguity and help to construct
shared understandings but this is not sufficient. The goal should be to
first confront tensions by discussing and critiquing them in order to de-
velop better ways of working. The ultimate aim, particularly in partner-
ship based programmes, should be to reach a level of transcendence that
involves rethinking the relationships between competing demands and
exploiting the complementarity and interdependence of those involved.
There are a number of limitations to this work. Firstly, while a mul-
tiple case study approach was taken, the cases examined are similar in
nature as each is situated in the Africa based country office of an INGO.
Secondly, the research does not take account of the fact that the re-
search took place in socio-cultural settings that may not be adequately
reflected in the management concepts and theories being drawn upon
(Holtbrügge, 2013; Kamoche, Chizema, Mellahi & Newenham-Kahindi,
2012). Thirdly, while donors are a key stakeholder in international de-
velopment, the research does not examine their perspectives on adapt-
ability and learning.
Further empirical research is recommended to address these limita-
tions and to provide insight into how project and programme manage-
ment can benefit from the application of a project facilitation perspec-
tive in other contexts.
Funding
This work was supported by the Irish Research Council’s New Foun-
dations scheme in 2016 and 2017.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
Agostini, L., Nosella, A., & Filippini, R. (2017). Ambidextrous organisation and knowledge
exploration and exploitation: The mediating role of internal networking. International
Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 14(1), 122–138.
Almahendra, R., & Ambos, B. (2015). Exploration and exploitation: A 20-year review
of evolution and reconceptualisation. International Journal of Innovation Management,
19(01), Article 1550008.
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organiza-
tional ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4),
696–717.
Ayas, K. (1996). Professional project management: A shift towards learning and a knowl-
edge creating structure. International Journal of Project Management, 14(3), 131–136.
Bank, World (1998). Partnership for Development: Proposed Actions for the World Bank.
SecM98-421, May 28, 1998.
Battersby, P., & Roy, R. K. (2017). Globalization and Global Development Practice. In
P. Bettersby (Ed.), International development: A global perspective on theory and practice
(pp. 3–11). Sage.
Bérubé, J., & Gauthier, J.-. B. (2017). Compromise between creative activities and project
management activities: A contingency factor. The Journal of Modern Project Manage-
ment, 5(2).
Biedenbach, T. (2011). The power of combinative capabilities: Facilitating the outcome
of frequent innovation in pharmaceutical R&D projects. Project Management Journal,
42(2), 63–80.
Billson, J. M. (2008). Focus Groups in the Context of International Development: In Pursuit
of the Millennium Development Goals. In International clinical sociology (pp. 188–207).
Springer.
Biygautane, M., Neesham, C., & Al-Yahya, K. O. (2019). Institutional entrepreneurship
and infrastructure public-private partnership (PPP): Unpacking the role of social ac-
tors in implementing PPP projects. International Journal of Project Management, 37(1),
192–219.
Bond, R., & Hulme, D. (1999). Process approaches to development: Theory and Sri Lankan
practice. World Development, 27(8), 1339–1358.
497
International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 486–499
Bradley, G. (2016). Benefit realisation management: A practical guide to achieving benefits
through change. Routledge.
Brinkerhoff, D. W., & Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2011). Public–private partnerships: Perspectives
on purposes, publicness, and good governance. Public Administration and Development,
31(1), 2–14.
Brinkerhoff, D. W., Frazer, S., & McGregor-Mirghani, L. (2018). Adapting to learn and learn-
ing to adapt: Practical insights from international development projects (p. 9436). RTI
Press.
Chambers, R. (2015). Inclusive rigour for complexity. Journal of Development Effectiveness,
7(3), 327–335.
Chambers, R., & Ramalingam, B. (2016). Adapting aid. Lessons from six case studies. IRC
and Mercy Corps.
Cicmil, S., & Marshall, D. (2005). Insights into collaboration at the project level: Complex-
ity, social interaction and procurement mechanisms. Building Research & Information,
33(6), 523–535.
Cicmil, S., & O’Laocha, E. (2016). The logic of projects and the ideal of community devel-
opment: Social good, participation and the ethics of knowing. International Journal of
Managing Projects in Business, 9(3), 546–561. 10.1108/IJMPB-09-2015-0092.
Contu, A., & Girei, E. (2014). NGOs management and the value of ‘partnerships’ for equal-
ity in international development: What’s in a name. Human Relations, 67(2), 205–232.
Corbin, J. H., Mittelmark, M. B., & Lie, G. T. (2011). Mapping synergy and antagony in
North–South partnerships for health: A case study of the Tanzanian women’s NGO
KIWAKKUKI. Health Promotion International, 28(1), 51–60.
Dalcher, D. (2017). So where do benefits come from. PM World Journal, 6(2).
David, C. (2019). NGOs and Companies: How to make a partnership work? PM World
Journal VIII(IV - May 2019.
Dearden, P., & Kowalski, B. (2003). Programme and project cycle management (PPCM):
Lessons from south and north. Development in Practice, 13(5), 501–514.
Derbyshire, H., & Donovan, E. (2016). Adaptive programming in practice: Shared lessons
from the DFID-funded LASER and SAVI programmes. In: London. August.
Dewulf, A., & Elbers, W. (2017). Power in multi-stakeholder partnerships: A conceptual
framework. Paper presented at the 30th Annual Conference of the International Association
for Conflict Management.
Diallo, A., & Thuillier, D. (2005). The success of international development projects, trust
and communication: An African perspective. International Journal of Project Manage-
ment, 23(3), 237–252.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities
and challenges. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.
Eyben, R. (2013). Who owns a poverty reduction strategy? A case study of power, in-
struments and relationships in Bolivia. In L. Groves, & R. Hinton (Eds.), Inclusive aid:
Changing power and relationships in international development (pp. 75–93). Routledge.
Eyben, R., Guijt, I., Roche, C., & Shutt, C. (2015). The politics of evidence and results in inter-
national development: Playing the game to change the rules?. Practical Action Publishing
Rugby.
Ferguson, J., Huysman, M., & Soekijad, M. (2010). Knowledge management in practice:
Pitfalls and potentials for development. World Development, 38(12), 1797–1810.
Ferguson, J., Mchombu, K., & Cummings, S. (2008). Management of knowledge for devel-
opment: Meta-review and scoping study. Amsterdam: IKM Working Paper, 1.
Foster, C., & Heeks, R. (2017). Nurturing user-producer interaction: Inclusive innovation
flows in a low-income mobile phone market. In R. Heeks, C. Foster, & Y. Nugroho
(Eds.), New models of inclusive innovation for development (pp. 47–64). Routledge.
Fowler, A. (1991). Building partnerships between Northern and Southern development
NGOs: Issues for the 1990s. Development in Practice, 1(1), 5–18.
Gaim, M., & Wåhlin, N. (2016). In search of a creative space: A conceptual framework of
synthesizing paradoxical tensions. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 32(1), 33–44.
Garcias, F., Dalmasso, C., & Sardas, J.-. C. (2015). Paradoxical tensions in learning pro-
cesses: Exploration, exploitation and exploitative learning. M@ n@ gement, 18(2),
156–178.
Gasper, D. (2000). Evaluating the’logical framework approach’towards learning-oriented
development evaluation. Public Administration & Development, 20(1), 17.
Glennie, J., & Rabinowitz, G. (2013). Localising Aid: A Whole of Society Approach. Retrieved
from
Golini, R., Landoni, P., & Kalchschmidt, M. (2018). The adoption of the logical framework
in international development projects: A survey of non-governmental organizations.
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 36(2), 145–154.
Gorod, A., Hallo, L., & Nguyen, T. (2018). A systemic approach to complex project manage-
ment: integration of command‐and‐control and network governance. Systems Research
and Behavioral Science, 35(6), 811–837.
Green, D. (2016). How change happens. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hayman, R. (2016). NGOs and the evidence-based policy agenda. In R. Hayman, S. King,
T. Kontinen, & L. Narayanaswamy (Eds.), Negotiating knowledge: Evidence and experi-
ence in development NGOs (pp. 128–145). Rugby, UK: Practical Action Publishing Ltd.
Hennink, M. M. (2007). International focus group research: A handbook for the health and
social sciences. Cambridge University Press.
Hermano, V., López-Paredes, A., Martín-Cruz, N., & Pajares, J. (2013). How to manage
international development (ID) projects successfully. Is the PMD Pro1 Guide going to
the right direction? International Journal of Project Management, 31(1), 22–30.
Hodgson, D., Paton, S., & Muzio, D. (2015). Something old, something new?: Competing
logics and the hybrid nature of new corporate professions. British Journal of Manage-
ment, 26(4), 745–759.
Holtbrügge, D. (2013). Indigenous management research. Management International Re-
view, 53(1), 1–11.
Hovland, I. (2003). Knowledge management and organisational learning: An international de-
velopment perspective: An anotated bibliography. Overseas Development Institute Lon-
don.
J. Lannon and J.N. Walsh
Hueskes, M., Verhoest, K., & Block, T. (2017). Governing public–private partnerships for
sustainability: An analysis of procurement and governance practices of PPP infras-
tructure projects. International Journal of Project Management, 35(6), 1184–1195.
Ika, L. A., Diallo, A., & Thuillier, D. (2010). Project management in the international
development industry: The project coordinator’s perspective. International Journal of
Managing Projects in Business, 3(1), 61–93.
Ika, L. (2012). Project management for development in Africa: Why projects are failing
and what can be done about it. Project Management Journal, 43(4), 27–41.
Ika, L., & Hodgson, D. (2014). Learning from international development projects: Blend-
ing Critical Project Studies and Critical Development Studies. International Journal of
Project Management, 32(7), 1182–1196.
Ika, L., & Lytvynov, V. (2009). RBM: A Shift to Managing Development Project Objectives.
Journal of Global Business Administration, 1(1).
Ilott, I., Kottorp, A., la Cour, K., van Nes, F., Jonsson, H., & Sadlo, G. (2013). Sustaining in-
ternational partnerships: The European master of science programme in occupational
therapy, a case study. Occupational Therapy International, 20(2), 58–67.
Jarzabkowski, P. (2004). Strategy as practice: Recursiveness, adaptation, and prac-
tices-in-use. Organization Studies, 25(4), 529–560.
Jarzabkowski, P., Lê, J. K., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Responding to competing strategic
demands: How organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strategic
Organization, 11(3), 245–280.
Jeffares, S., Sullivan, H., & Bovaird, T. (2013). Beyond the contract: The challenge of eval-
uating the performance (s) of public–private partnerships. In Rethinking public-private
partnerships (pp. 178–199). Routledge.
Kamoche, K., Chizema, A., Mellahi, K., & Newenham-Kahindi, A. (2012). New directions
in the management of human resources in Africa. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 23(14), 2825–2834.
Kerzner, H. (2003). Strategic planning for a project office. Project Management Journal,
34(2), 13–25.
Khang, D. B., & Moe, T. L. (2008). Success criteria and factors for international devel-
opment projects: A life‐cycle‐based framework. Project Management Journal, 39(1),
72–84.
King, K., & McGrath, S. A. (2004). Knowledge for development?: Comparing british, japanese,
swedish and world bank aid. Zed Books.
King, N. (1998). Template analysis. In G. Symon, & C. Cassell (Eds.), Qualitative methods
and analysis in organizational research: A practical guide (pp. 118–134). Sage Publica-
tions Ltd.
King, N. (2004). Template analysis–What is template analysis. Opgevraagd van
http://www.hud.ac.uk/hhs/research/template-analysis.
King, S., Kontinen, T., Narayanaswamy, L., & Hayman, R. (2016). Introduction: Why
do NGOs need to negotiate knowledge?. In R. Hayman, S. King, T. Kontinen, &
L. Narayanaswamy (Eds.), Negotiating knowledge: Evidence and experience in develop-
ment NGOs (pp. 1–14). Rugby, UK: Practical Action Publishing Ltd.
Kislov, R., Hodgson, D., & Boaden, R. (2016). Professionals as knowledge brokers: The
limits of authority in healthcare collaboration. Public Administration, 94(2), 472–489.
Klikauer, T. (2015). What is managerialism. Critical Sociology, 41(7–8), 1103–1119.
Knight, E., & Harvey, W. (2015). Managing exploration and exploitation paradoxes in
creative organisations. Management Decision, 53(4), 809–827.
Kontinen, T. (2016). What sense does it make? Vocabularies of practice and knowl-
edge creation in a development NGO. In R. Hayman, S. King, T. Kontinen, &
L. Narayanaswamy (Eds.), Negotiating knowledge: Evidence and experience in develop-
ment NGOs (pp. 29–45). Practical Action Publishing Ltd.
Koops, L., Bosch-Rekveldt, M., Bakker, H., & Hertogh, M. (2017). Exploring the influence
of external actors on the cooperation in public–private project organizations for con-
structing infrastructure. International Journal of Project Management, 35(4), 618–632.
Labelle, F., de Rouffignac, A., Lemire, P.-. O., Bredillet, C., & Barnabé, S. (2019). Managing
tensions and paradoxes between stakeholders in a complex project context: Case study
and model proposal. The Journal of Modern Project Management, 7(2).
Lewis, D. (2004). The management of non-governmental development organizations: An intro-
duction. Routledge.
Lewis, M. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of
Management Review, 25(4), 760–776.
Liu, L., Wang, X., & Sheng, Z. (2012). Achieving ambidexterity in large, complex engi-
neering projects: A case study of the Sutong Bridge project. Construction Management
and Economics, 30(5), 399–409.
Lloyd-Walker, B., & Walker, D. (2011). Authentic leadership for 21st century project de-
livery. International Journal of Project Management, 29(4), 383–395.
Lövstål, E., & Jontoft, A.-. M. (2017). Tensions at the intersection of management control
and innovation: A literature review. Journal of Management Control, 28(1), 41–79.
Lycett, M., Rassau, A., & Danson, J. (2004). Programme management: A critical review.
International Journal of Project Management, 22(4), 289–299.
Mack, O. (2016). In D. Lock, & R. Wagner (Eds.) (pp. 229–244). Routledge.
Madsen, W., & O’Mullan, C. (2018). Power, participation and partnerships: Reflections on
the co-creation of knowledge. Reflective Practice, 19(1), 26–34.
Mahalingam, A., & Levitt, R. E. (2007). Institutional theory as a framework for analyz-
ing conflicts on global projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
133(7), 517–528.
Mansuri, G., & Rao, V. (2012). Localizing development: Does participation work?. World Bank
Publications.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization
Science, 2(1), 71–87.
Martin, A. J. (2012). Adaptability and learning. Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning,
90–92.
Martinsuo, M., & Hoverfält, P. (2018). Change program management: Toward a capability
for managing value-oriented, integrated multi-project change in its context. Interna-
tional Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 134–146.
498
International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 486–499
Maynard-Tucker, G. (2000). Conducting focus groups in developing countries: Skill train-
ing for local bilingual facilitators. Qualitative Health Research, 10(3), 396–410.
McGill, M. E., Slocum, J. W., Jr, & Lei, D. (1992). Management practices in learning or-
ganizations. Organizational Dynamics, 21(1), 5–17.
McKernan, E., Kennedy, K., & Aldred, A. (2016). Adopting Results Based Management in
the Non-Profit Sector: Trócaire’s Experience. Project Management Research and Practice,
3, 5122.
Morgan, E. P. (1983). The project orthodoxy in development: Re-evaluating the cutting
edge. Public Administration and Development, 3(4), 329–339.
Moschitz, H., Roep, D., Brunori, G., & Tisenkopfs, T. (2015). Learning and Innovation
Networks for Sustainable Agriculture: Processes of Co-evolution, Joint Reflection
and Facilitation. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 21(1), 1–11.
10.1080/1389224X.2014.991111.
Moses, M., & Soal, S. (2017). Learning how to go local: Lessons from six learning journeys
for the Open Government Partnership.
Mougeot, L. J. A. (2017). Introduction: Knowledge for civil society in the rapidly changing
ecosystem for international development. In L. J. Mougeot (Ed.), Putting knowledge to
work: Collaborating, influencing and learning for international development (pp. 1–36).
Ottawa: Practical Action Publishing.
Murray-Webster, R., & Thiry, M. (2000). Managing programmes of projects. Gower Hand-
book of Project Management, 3, 47–64.
Ndhlovu, B. S. (2007). Partnership approach in development: A reality or a myth?: Ms Zim-
babwe’s operationalisation of the partnership approach. Centre for Development Support,
University of the Free State.
Nejmeh, B. A., & Vicary, B. (2009). Lessons learned about design, monitoring and evalu-
ation process definition and information management for international development
programmes. Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 5(2), 143–159.
O’Donnell, M. (2016). Adaptive management: What it means for CSOs. London: Bond.
Owen, J. (2006). Integrating knowledge management with programme management. In-
ternational Journal of Knowledge Management (IJKM), 2(1), 41–57.
Pantazidou, M. (2012). What next for power analysis? A review of recent experience with
the powercube and related frameworks. IDS Working Papers, 2012(400), 1–46.
Parker, D. W., Dressel, U., Chevers, D., & Zeppetella, L. (2018). Agency theory perspec-
tive on public-private-partnerships: International development project. International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management.
Paton, S., & Hodgson, D. (2016). Project managers on the edge: Liminality and identity
in the management of technical work. New Technology, Work and Employment, 31(1),
26–40.
Pellegrinelli, S. (1997). Programme management: Organising project-based change. Inter-
national Journal of Project Management, 15(3), 141–149.
Pellegrinelli, S. (2011). What’s in a name: Project or programme. International Journal of
Project Management, 29(2), 232–240.
Pellegrinelli, S., Murray-Webster, R., & Turner, N. (2015). Facilitating organizational am-
bidexterity through the complementary use of projects and programs. International
Journal of Project Management, 33(1), 153–164.
Pellegrinelli, S., Partington, D., & Geraldi, J. (2011). Programme management: An emerg-
ing opportunity for research and scholarship. The oxford handbook of project manage-
ment.
Pellegrinelli, S., Partington, D., Hemingway, C., Mohdzain, Z., & Shah, M. (2007). The
importance of context in programme management: An empirical review of programme
practices. International Journal of Project Management, 25(1), 41–55.
Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and orga-
nization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562–578.
Prieto-Martin, P., Faith, B., Hernandez, K., & Ramalingam, B. (2017). Doing Digital Devel-
opment Differently: Lessons in adaptive management from technology for governance
initiatives in Kenya.
Ramalingam, B. (2015,. November 27th 2015). The Adaptation Gap (and how
to deal with it). Retrieved from https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/the-adaptation-gap-
and-how-to-deal-with-it/.
Ramalingam, B., Laric, M., & Primrose, J. (2014). From best practice to best fit: Understanding
and navigating wicked problems in international development. Retrieved from
Rijke, J., van Herk, S., Zevenbergen, C., Ashley, R., Hertogh, M., & ten Heuvel-
hof, E. (2014). Adaptive programme management through a balanced perfor-
mance/strategy oriented focus. International Journal of Project Management, 32(7),
1197–1209.
Roduner, D., Schläppi, W., & Egli, W. (2008). Logical framework approach and outcome
mapping, a constructive attempt of synthesis. Rural Development News, 2, 1–24.
Roehrich, J. K., Lewis, M. A., & George, G. (2014). Are public–private partnerships
a healthy option? A systematic literature review. Social Science & Medicine, 113,
110–119.
Rogers, P. (2014). Theory of change. Methodological Briefs: Impact evaluation, 2, 16.
Rouyre, A., & Fernandez, A.-. S. (2019). Managing Knowledge Sharing-Protecting Tensions
in Coupled Innovation Projects among Several Competitors. California Management
Review, 62(1), 95–120.
Schaaf, R. (2015). The rhetoric and reality of partnerships for international development.
Geography Compass, 9(2), 68–80.
Scholz, B., Bocking, J., Platania-Phung, C., Banfield, M., & Happell, B. (2018). “Not an
afterthought”: Power imbalances in systemic partnerships between health service
providers and consumers in a hospital setting. Health Policy.
Smith, E. (2017). The learning needs and experiences of Canadian civil society organiza-
tions in international cooperation for development. In L. J. A. Mougeot (Ed.), Putting
knowledge to work: Collaborating, influencing and learning for international development
(pp. 143–182). Ottawa: Practical Action Publishing.
Smith, M., & Bititci, U. S. (2017). Interplay between performance measurement and man-
agement, employee engagement and performance. International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, 37(9), 1207–1228.
J. Lannon and J.N. Walsh
Smith, P., & Bryan, K. (2005). Participatory evaluation: Navigating the emotions of part-
nerships. Journal of Social Work Practice, 19(2), 195–209.
Smith, W., & Lewis, M. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model
of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.
Stein, D., & Valters, C. (2012). Understanding theory of change in international development.
Justice and Security Research Programme, International Development Department,
LSE.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage publications.
Stretton, A. (2016). Distinguishing Different Types of Programmes. In D. Lock, & R. Wag-
ner (Eds.), Gower handbook of programme management (pp. 43–57). Routledge.
Szentes, H. (2018). Reinforcing cycles involving inter-and intraorganizational paradoxical
tensions when managing large construction projects. Construction Management and
Economics, 36(3), 125–140.
Thatcher, J. B., Brower, R. S., & Mason, R. M. (2006). Organizational Fields and the Diffu-
sion of Information Technologies within and across the Nonprofit and Public Sectors.
American Review of Public Administration, 36(4), 437–454.
Thiry, M. (2002). Combining value and project management into an effective pro-
gramme management model. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3),
221–227.
Thiry, M. (2016). Program management. Routledge.
Thomas, K., & Allen, S. (2006). The learning organisation: A meta-analysis of themes in
literature. The Learning Organization, 13(2), 123–139.
Tillmann, P., Tzortzopoulos, P., & Formoso, C. (2010). Analysing benefits realisation from
a theoretical perspective and its contribution to value generation. Paper presented at
the 18th Annual Conference, International Group for Lean Construction.
499
International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 486–499
Tuczek, H. C., & Frank, J. (2016). Managing Partners in Programmes. In D. Lock, & R. Wag-
ner (Eds.), Gower handbook of programme management (pp. 502–519). Routledge.
Valters, C. (2015). Theories of change. Time for a radical approach to learn-
ing in development. Retrieved from https://www.odi.org/publications/
9883-theories-change-time-radical-approach-learning-development.
Valters, C., Cummings, C., & Nixon, H. (2016). Putting learning at the centre:
Adaptive development programming in practice. London: Overseas Development
Institute.
Van Es, M., Guijt, I., & Vogel, I. (2015). Theory of change thinking in practice: A stepwise
approach. The Hague: Hivos.
Vargas, R. V., Abdollahyan, F., Soares, C. A. P., & Valle, A. B. d. (2016). Programme
Management for Humanitarian and Development Projects. In D. Lock, & R. Wagner
(Eds.), Gower handbook of programme management (pp. 174–193). Routledge.
Vogel, I. (2012). Review of the use of “Theory of change” in international development. London:
Department for International Development.
Wagner, R., & Lock, D. (2016). Introduction to Programme Management. In D. Lock, &
R. Wagner (Eds.), Gower handbook of programme management (pp. 3–17). Routledge.
Walker, R. K. (2015). Relating outputs, outcomes and impact in the evaluation of interna-
tional development projects. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 11(24), 76–83.
Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4 edition). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.