Figure 2.1: HDI: Human Development Index (2011) (UNDP, 2011)
Table 2.1: Distinction between hard and soft projects (Crawford & Pollack, 2004)
Table 2.2: The peculiarities identified in the literature and confirmed by interviews
Table 2.3: Types of stakeholders involved in an ID project
Figure 2.2: Example of a stakeholder map highlighting mutual relationships (Ahsan & Gunawan, 2010)
Figure 3.1: Baum’s project cycle (Baum, 1978)
Table 3.1: European Commission LF Matrix (adapted from European Commission, 2004)
Figure 3.2: Example of objective tree (adapted from European Commission, 2004)
Table 3.2: Example of LF for a river water pollution reduction project (European Commission, 2004)
Table 3.3: ID projects peculiarities and consequent Desired features of the PM tools
Table 4.1: Comparison summary (Landoni and Corti, 2011)
Table 4.2: Performance measurement framework (adapted from CIDA, 2009)
Figure 4.1: USAID Results Framework example (USAID, 2009a)
Figure 4.2: Comparison of life cycles
Table 4.3: Transition planning matrix (PM4NGO, 2012)
Table 4.4: Tools for the initiation phase (PM4NGO, 2012)
Table 4.5: Traditional vs. Adaptive project Management (PM4DEV, 2011)
Table 4.6: The processes included in the guides
Table 4.7: Comparison of the tools
Table 4.8: Project monitoring and evaluation matrix (PM4NGO, 2012)
Figure 4.3: Logical framework (PM4DEV, 2010)
Figure 4.4: Logical framework (PM4NGO, 2012)
Figure 4.5: Example of problem tree
Figure 4.6: Example of objective tree
Figure 4.7: Example of alternative tree
Figure 4.8: Stakeholder analysis matrix. (PM4NGO, 2012)
Figure 4.9: Stakeholder map. (Source: PMI, 2008)
Figure 4.10: Stakeholder map. (PM4DEV, 2012)
Table 4.9: Relationship between the peculiarities and the tools
Figure 5.1: The sample by continent where NGOs is based
Figure 5.2: The sample by total income of the NGOs
Figure 5.3: The sample classified size of the NGOs (number of employees)
Figure 5.7: The sample classified for project aims
Figure 5.9: Tools adoption among NGOs
Figure 5.10: Methodologies and frameworks adoption depending on project aims
Figure 5.11: Tools adoption depending on project aims – Logical framework
Figure 5.12: Tools adoption depending on project aims – Time and cost planning tools
Figure 5.13: Tools adoption depending on project aims – Scope management tools
Figure 5.14: Tools adoption depending on project aims – Human resource management tools
Figure 5.15: Tools adoption depending on project aims – Risk management tools
Figure 5.16: Tools adoption depending on project aims – Control tools
Figure 5.18: Number of high and low performers
Figure 5.19: Methodologies adoption of high and low project performers
Figure 5.20: Tools adoption of high and low project performers
Figure 5.21: Involvement in the LF management
Figure 5.22: Subscription/approval of the LF
Figure 5.23: Role that benefits the most of the use of the LF