Search results

The purpose of this paper is to review and analyze Albert Hirschman’s landmark book Development Projects Observed, share its insights for managing big projects, discuss its theoretical implications and how it may contribute to the current understanding of project behavior, project management (PM), and in what way it may encourage the rethinking of PM.

The paper is based on an in-depth analysis of Hirschman’s book. The paper draws on the writings of Jeremy Adelman who authored Hirschman’s biography, Cass Sunstein and Michele Alacevich who, respectively, wrote the foreword and afterword of the Brookings Institution classic published in 2014. It also profits from the work of Robert Picciotto who first met Hirschman in 1964, and Bent Flyvbjerg who recently offered a test of validity for Hirschman’s “Hiding Hand” principle.

Albert Hirschman was an original thinker and, the authors argue in many ways, a father of PM scholarship. His ideas had profound implications for social sciences and lasting influence in academy, policy, and practice. Although, to a great extent based on studies of projects, his ideas have had surprisingly little impact on modern writings of PM. This paper contributes to amending this weakness in current literature on PM. The authors identify in Hirschman’s book a set of core ideas that possess analytical power for explaining problems in contemporary PM. They include the principle of the Hiding Hand, the power of context, the role of complexity and uncertainty, the unexpected project effects, project traits, and latitudes/disciplines. For all his work and way of research, the authors conclude that Hirschman is not only an early behavioral theorist in PM but equally an early rethinker of PM.

This is the first paper that offers a discussion of Hirschman’s ideas on contemporary projects, how to understand them, their behavior, including the principle of the Hiding Hand and other important nuggets of wisdom in his research such as the significance of project traits, latitudes, and disciplines. The authors discuss in what respects these ideas may enlighten PM practice and theory. This paper also conveys the novel idea that Hirschman is an early rethinker of PM.

This paper discusses the role of Albert O. Hirschman as a founder of development economics in the postwar years. Although Hirschman maintained a strong interest in development matters throughout his entire professional career, his major contributions to development economics took place between the mid-1950s and the late 1960s. The paper examines Hirschman’s innovative contributions to the new discipline. When, in the 1950s, development economics gravitated around the concept of “balanced growth,” Hirschman opened new vistas with a theory of “unbalanced growth.” In the early 1960s, Hirschman focused on reformist political approaches to development, against the opposed extremisms of reaction and revolution. Finally, in the late 1960s, Hirschman opened new perspectives on the importance of detailed analysis of development projects, against the theoretical drift of early development economics.

The discussion of Hirschman’s development career is also an opportunity to observe the gap between theoretical debates and development policies. Whereas development economists often clashed on theoretical issues, their views were remarkably closer on practical questions.

As a pioneer of development economics, Hirschman sought to establish it as a discipline theoretically distinct from mainstream economics. By the 1980s, this project had collapsed, and the development question was reabsorbed by the economic mainstream. This article, however, argues that current development debates remain deeply indebted to Hirschman’s contribution. His reformist vision, rejection of one-size-fits-all solutions, his insistence on the ineluctable role of uncertainty, and his search for country-specific, incremental, and evolutionary policies make his approach central to current development discourse.

Gender inequality remains very strong in developing countries. Efforts are however made by actors involved in development projects to contribute to reducing these inequalities. Using observations coming from field experiences and a specific case for which some sex-disaggregated data are available, the author offers some lessons learned to practitioners. More specifically, this chapter questions the different phases of the project cycle, in particular the planning, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms regarding their role in considering gender. The chapter focuses on the relevance of initial gender diagnostics which allow identifying what needs to be addressed to reduce gender inequalities and proposing adequate solutions in specific cultural contexts. The author then provides some guidelines concerning operational arrangements necessary for effectively monitoring aspects related to the inclusion of women in development projects. This includes the design and implementation of a gender strategy, the designation of a dedicated focal point, the systematic planning and monitoring of sex-disaggregated data, the provision of staff skilled in gender issues, and the presence of a gender balance in project teams and support staff. The chapter emphasizes that it is essential to analyze the differential impacts that the development project may have on men and women; this is rarely done. Experience has shown that development can increase inequality due in particular to initial gender differences. Finally, the chapter recommends that to compensate for differences in initial opportunities and capacities, support for women in the budget should be strengthened.

In response to the increasing number of open‐source software (OSS) project initiatives and the increasing demand of OSS products as alternative solutions by industries, it is important for particular stakeholders such as the project host/supporter project‐leading teams, and prospective customers to determine whether a project initiative is likely to be sustainable and is worth supporting. This paper aims to propose a concept of “health” indicators and an evaluation process that can help to get a status overview of OSS projects in a timely fashion and predict project survivability based on the project data available on web repositories.

For initial empirical evaluation of the concept, the indicators are applied to well‐known web‐based OSS projects (Apache Tomcat and Apache HTTP Server) and the results are compared with challenged projects (Apache Xindice and Apache Slide). The results are discussed with OSS experts to investigate the external validity of the indicators.

From a software project management point of view, a typical web‐based OSS project can be viewed as a web‐engineering process, since most OSS projects exploit the benefits of a web platform and enable the project community to collaborate using web‐based project tools and repositories such as mailing lists, bug trackers, and versioning systems (CVS/SVN) to deliver web systems and applications. These repositories can provide rich collections of process data, and artifacts which can be analyzed to better understand the project status.

The paper provides information of value about open‐source solutions.

The purpose of this paper is to improve understanding and practice of project management by assessing whether two of its core myths also prevail in international development (ID): first, that project managers (PMs) plan fully for project success, including implementation success and end‐user satisfaction; and second, that they can focus on “getting things done”, free of concern for strategic issues.

The analysis of a high‐profile World Bank project and of the policies and rules under which their PMs operate serves as a means to carry out the research. The authors uncover certain “facts” that challenge the myths that prevail in standard project management. Furthermore, they examine how these facts and the corollaries they produce guide the behaviours of PMs differently in the ID field.

In the ID field, and contrary to the standard practice in project management, it is found that: PMs are not involved in overall planning, and are limited to implementation planning, because they lack the necessary latitude. Hence, they practice project implementation as the art of avoiding making mistakes as they juggle donor procedures and guidelines. Second, PMs are well informed about the overall strategy of their project, which is articulated by the donors and the beneficiary country, but they are limited in their ability to contribute directly to its success. Thus, they may fail to deliver the intended development strategy even if they “get things done”.

This paper argues that these two core PM tenets are convenient myths at best, given the asymmetrical distribution of power, the strong front‐end activity, and the procedures orientation of international development projects.

This paper addresses questions regarding the nature and the content of the work of PMs in the context of ID. In contrast to other sectors, projects are found to be linked more clearly to the higher strategic issues, and yet PMs are less empowered to contribute to them. Thus, all stakeholders may have to revise their expectations regarding what PMs can realistically do in ID. These findings are relevant to scholars and practitioners alike.

The value of this paper lies in examining the basic question of “what PMs do”. Although ID has been project‐oriented since the 1950s, this question has not received much attention in standard PM literature. In assessing “what PMs do”, the paper also brings into question “what project management is”.

This paper introduces a hitherto unpublished 1970 paper written by Lauchlin Currie (1902–1993) on Paul Rosenstein Rodan’s famous 1943 paper on the “Big Push” which led to the balanced-unbalanced growth debate to which Albert Hirschman (1915–2012) was an important contributor. Both Currie and Hirschman had been key economic advisers to the Colombian government, and their respective views on development planning are contrasted. In particular, it is shown how Currie’s 1970 paper illuminates the theory behind the 1971–1974 national plan for Colombia that he prepared and helped deliver; and how the related institutional innovations have had an enduring impact on Colombia’s recent economic history.

Before starting to define the project task and plan the project, we suggest to seek a thorough understanding of the nature of the project task. This includes an analysis of uncertainties and complexities. Dimensions of complexity will be presented.

Projects create value. This will be discussed by means of understanding the need and formulating expected benefit. Also, objectives of the end result will be dealt with. Stakeholders’ expectations will define success criteria of the project.

Forming the project implies defining content and scope to be treated.

The chapter will finally discuss issues related to forming a project, e.g., how to deal with the world outside the project, to view forming a project as an organizational learning process, and to be aware of typical behavioral reactions to uncertainty and complexity.

The purpose of this article is to report the results of research on whether the public hearing in Thailand's infrastructure development projects can be an effective vehicle for the project's public participation and conflict resolution on projects.

The performance of public hearing depends on factors such as the structure of the process, participation, management, and resource required by the process. A case study approach is used to assess the performance of public hearings conducted in infrastructure development projects in Thailand by examining the project stakeholders' attitude by means of questionnaire survey and interviews. Evaluation by hearing participants and their level of satisfaction are interpreted to derive the effectiveness of the hearings. The extent to which satisfaction effects on evaluation is also considered.

It is shown that the hearings had moderate to low effectiveness primarily because the participation and management performance aspects did not meet the participants' expectations. The relationships of evaluation and satisfaction indices were examined. The hearing participants focus both on the process and outcome of hearings.

The research reported the results of scientific assessment of public hearing performance, constituting a significant step towards understanding and implementation of public hearings in the Thai context as well as their influence on the efficiency and effectiveness of the project management concerning the stakeholder values.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the quintessential methodology of the international development (ID) projects, the logical framework approach (LFA), to find out which changes are required to increase the level of effectiveness of these projects.

This research presents a thorough review of literature relating to the evolution of the LFA. This theoretical analysis formed the basis for a closed-ended questionnaire on the methodology and how it could be improved, from which the responses of 56 project managers experienced in the LFA were collected. Data were statistically analyzed through correlation matrix and ANOVA analysis by SPSS software. The questionnaire included a last open-ended question where professionals suggested how they would develop the methodology, opening a new path to effectiveness through participative approaches.

The research reveals that the LFA needs to be improved, and points to the next steps in the evolution of this mature methodology. An interesting insight is that although some suggestions are broadly accepted, such as the integration of risk management, other proposals could be open to further discussion depending on the organization.

The main weakness is related to the sample, which is reduced to 56 project managers from the same country (Spain).

Since interventions for development are made by practitioners, considering their suggestions to improve the LFA is a major step to enhance the management of ID projects.

As Hirschman wrote of himself in an essay of 1984, he was a dissenter. The paper focuses on three dimensions of this dissent. Dissent from orthodoxy, in the first place, even if his stance rarely assumed the feature of a frontal opposition. His distance from mainstream economics clearly emerges in the contrast between growth and development, here exemplified through a comparison of Solow’s and Hirschman’s conceptions. Second, dissent from heterodoxy: from Nurkse, Rosenstein Rodan and the balanced growth theory, but also a distance from the kind of economic theorizing recently exemplified by Krugman’s critical appraisal of Hirschman’s contribution. Third, a dissent from Hirschman himself. He developed a practice defined as “self-subversion” to convey the meaning of a self-critical dialogue with his own positions. In this context, two examples will be discussed, namely his critical reappraisal of the dependency theory, to which Hirschman as a young man contributed indirectly, and his after-thoughts on the choice between sequential or simultaneous strategies. Hirschman’s reflections on the last theme appear relevant to address the problems of current Eurozone crisis: its roots may be traced back to the faulty construction of the Monetary Union, which in turn largely stemmed from the misplaced confidence in the “automatism” of the sequence Monetary Union-Fiscal Union-Political Union.

The paper’s contention is that Hirschman’s “possibilism,” often mentioned, is not the result of a generic psychological propensity to optimism but stems from analytical observations and penetrating critical analysis of received ideas or categories, of other authors or of Hirschman himself.