Disaster Advances
2 (3) July (2009)
Developing NGO Competencies in Post-Disaster Reconstruction:
A Theoretical Framework
Von Meding J. K.*, Oyedele L. and Cleland D.J.
Queen's University Belfast, School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering, David Keir Building, Stranmillis Rd, Belfast, BT9 5AG, U.K.
*jvonmeding01@qub.ac.uk
Abstract
In the aftermath of recent natural disasters,
NGOs have become increasingly involved in the
permanent reconstruction of affected communities.
These organizations, often operating well outside their
expertise, encounter significant barriers as they
implement reconstruction programmes. This paper
presents the theoretical bedrock of a current research
project, the overall goal of which is to design a
competency-based framework model that can be used
by NGOs in post-disaster reconstruction projects.
Drawing on established theories of management, a
unique perspective has been developed from which a
competency-based reconstruction theory emerges. This
theoretical framework brings together three distinct
fields; Disaster Management, Strategic Management
and Project Management, each vital to the success of
the model. This theoretical study will incorporate a
critical review of literature within each field. It is
imperative that NGOs involved in post-disaster
reconstruction familiarize themselves with concepts and
strategies. It is hoped that the competence-based frame-
work model that is produced on the basis of this theory
will help define the standard of best practice to which
future NGO projects might align themselves.
Keywords: Competency, Capabilities, NGOs, Post-disaster
reconstruction.
Introduction
In a natural disaster scenario, the immediate concern
is to save life and property while the long term agenda
focuses on returning affected people to their normal lives. A
vital part of this mandate relates to the reconstruction of the
affected built environment. Following recent natural
disasters, NGOs have played a central role in the permanent
reconstruction of affected communities.4, 6, 9, 15, 19 Unfortu-
nately in many cases NGOs have operated well outside their
field of expertise and the quality of such reconstruction
projects has been called into question3, 9, 64.
At present, based on scientific evidence, there are
escalating concerns over global warming and its effects on
weather patterns. Experts warn that due to climate change, the
risk of natural disasters occurring is growing, in parallel to
the magnitude and frequency of hazard events36, 52, 57, 60, 68.
Recent climate model simulations show that a doubling of
(36)
Vol.
CO2 may increase the frequency of the most intense
cyclones69.
Climate change will always be closely tied to
disaster risk, by virtue of its inherent relationship to natural
hazards. Natural hazards trigger disasters, the scale of which
is largely determined by vulnerability, which itself is
becoming more and more clearly a development issue36.
Developing countries generally suffer the most due to natural
disasters. In fact, the unequal burden of disaster mortality is
striking; 11% of people exposed to hazards live in low-
development countries yet they account for 53% of those
killed13. In disaster scenarios, NGOs play a vital role in
ensuring these vulnerable populations receive immediate aid
and move towards long term recovery.
Reconstruction is part of the long-term recovery
process. However, within disaster management practice, no
area is more poorly executed4, 9, 20, 68. When we consider the
trauma and loss inflicted on communities that must be
addressed, it is clear that a multi-faceted recovery process is
vital. If implemented correctly, a successful reconstruction
project can be the catalyst for sustainable community
development: psychologically, physically and economically,
while significantly reducing vulnerability to future
hazards40, 43, 51, 52.
Following the Asian tsunami, NGOs flocked to
affected countries with large budgets and the best of
intentions40, 44, 56. Reconstruction projects became a priority
both for NGOs and their donors17, 19, 64. However, during their
rush to be involved in reconstruction, many NGOs operated
well outside their expertise due to the fact that action was
urgent and essential and did so without the capacity,
capabilities and competencies in place to deliver satisfactory
projects1, 20, 34, 35.
NGOs implementing reconstruction programmes are
acutely aware of the need to maintain standards in time, cost,
quality and satisfaction. This aligns reconstruction with the
definition of a project based activity, necessitating a
theoretical and practical contribution from the field of Project
Management. At the same time, a successful reconstruction
project must take into consideration issues including resource
availability, cultural differences, local regulations, political
environments, human resource deployment and many others.
The complexity of the response that is needed to ensure a
successful reconstruction programme makes the integration
of Strategic Management theory and knowledge essential. As
Disaster Advances
a result this study draws on established theories of strategic
management and existing principles of disaster management
and project management to produce a unique theoretical
framework with a competency-based core.
Due to the project-based nature of NGO reconstruc-
tion programmes, the investigation of the relationship
between strategic management and project management and
how the theories and practices in these fields can feed into
disaster management and specifically post-disaster
reconstruction, represents a significant contri-bution to
knowledge.
Drawing on established theories of organizational
strategy from the various fields of management, this paper
will specifically differentiate between the many theories
at play within the resource-based view of dynamic
competencies while for the first time applying such thinking
to disaster management practice. The formulation of a new
theoretical approach to NGO involvement in post-disaster
reconstruction is the primary objective of this study, focused
on developing effective strategies by deploying appropriate
organizational capabilities and dynamic operational
competencies.
The following hypothesis is the cornerstone of the
study: by building organizational capacity, capabilities and
competences to be dynamic in nature, while focusing on a
more emergent strategic approach, as compared to traditional
strategic planning, with emphasis on adaptive capability and
innovation. NGOs will be much better equipped to move
forward with reconstruction projects that all stakeholders can
have confidence in.
The development of a competency-based theoretical
framework will enable crucial further studies to take place
into the competencies that NGOs need to develop and deploy
to address their current inability to deliver efficient
reconstruction projects and the associated factors which
prevent them developing such competencies. There is a lucid
opportunity for research to be undertaken that will act as a
driver for change and renewal in NGO reconstruction
practice. This research is vital and urgent, to address both a
gap in knowledge that exists in the study of NGOs in the
context of post-disaster reconstruction and to contribute to the
practice of reconstruction in the field, where scarce resource
availability and intense competition for funding makes the
need to think and act strategically vital to NGOs.
NGOs and Post-Disaster Reconstruction
Disaster recovery and reconstruction is a qualitative
improvement of community life; it usually includes
rebuilding of infrastructure and damaged structures,
evaluation of codes and land use regulations, and adoption
and implementation of hazard mitigation measures44.
Natural disasters are the cause of death, loss and a
(37)
Vol. 2 (3) July (2009)
departure from normalcy for many affected populations every
year. In such scenarios, NGOs are quick to respond with
humanitarian aid, with large budgets bringing considerable
weight in the marketplace3, 29, 55. It is clear, however, that
post-disaster humanitarian assistance can increase long-term
vulnerability in certain communities16, 29, 64. Any post-disaster
initiative must address cultural, social, economic, technical
and political dimensions to ensure sustainable outcomes and
successfully reduce vulnerability44-47. Naturally, this applies
to reconstruction projects.
Unfortunately there exists a general reluctance to
engage in long-term planning on the part of communities,
funders, emergency managers. When a disaster occurs, often
recovery is driven by immediate challenges and short term
goals59. At times the implementation of mitigation measures
in the response phase comes up against indifference and even
outright opposition from both officials and the general public
who are of the opinion that disasters only involve the first
responders25, 58. Often local officials and planners assume that
mitigating against future hazard risk is not their responsibility
or concern38.
Barriers to successful NGO reconstruction
projects
Unfortunately, NGOs do not possess a good track
record when it comes to the implementation of reconstruction
projects which address the areas outlined above. In contrast,
some of these areas are particularly neglected as part of
substandard and expensive projects. As Barakat4 argues, ‘The
urgent need to do something within a short space of time is
not conducive to good, sustainable housing reconstruction nor
is the tendency of donors to set short timeframes for the
disbursement of emergency funds’.61
In recent years, this problem has manifested. There
are now many examples of substandard post-disaster
reconstruction projects, from those implementing badly
designed, poorly constructed, inappropriate housing1, 4, 23 to
those ignoring social and cultural markers and developing
projects that are eventually abandoned in favour of traditional
housing40. In recent years NGOs have generally been unable
to deliver satisfactory reconstruction projects and this is
something that must be remedied as a matter of urgency. In
fact, the goal should be far greater; to deliver exceptional
projects which transform communities.
Besides the fact that NGOs are generally operating
outside their area of expertise in reconstruction, various other
issues lead to unsuccessful reconstruction projects. In post-
disaster scenarios restrictions are often placed on the siting of
new construction. These decisions can decimate the
livelihoods of residents (e.g. fisherman not being allowed to
live immediately beside the sea) and are not sustainable
solutions57. Meanwhile, the housing type chosen by NGOs
can often represent the least viable option; most expensive to
Disaster Advances
build, lowest level of comfort, highest environmental
impact58.
Organizational Development
There has been a significant rise in the visibility of
NGO work globally, with many seeing NGOs acting as a
counter-balance for the current crisis of legitimacy faced by
governments and businesses20. As NGOs have challenged the
work of organizations and institutions with increasingly vocal
advocacy programmes, their own shortfalls have been
exposed. Cases of misconduct have surfaced7, 16 and aware-
ness has grown to the fact that there is a need for NGOs to be
accountable to key stakeholders, both to consolidate their
ethical position and to foster credibility14, 29. In the field,
many NGOs operate within guidelines such as the Sphere
Project Handbook to improve their performance and promote
accountability24.
Still, NGOs are not run like construction firms. If
they were, it is likely that reconstruction projects would be far
more efficient and of a higher quality. NGOs do bring a
wealth of knowledge to the table within the humanitarian
sector and this theoretical framework predicts that a shift in
management could enable such organisations to develop an
approach that would yield projects to satisfy all stakeholders.
The need for such a study is urgent and the results will be
immediately useful as NGOs continue to become involved in
reconstruction projects worldwide, for which they are all too
often ill-equipped.
Strategic Management of NGOs in Post-Disaster
Reconstruction
The theoretical grounding of this work in strategic
management will focus on three views; the resource-based
view, the competence-based view and the dynamic
capabilities view.
Competency is often thought of not as an attribute,
but rather as a variable- instead of being something an
organization has or does not have; it is something that an
organization has to a certain degree62. Competencies combine
both knowledge and skills, representing not only the essential
knowledge base, but the set of skills required to accomplish
useful tasks45. In order to be a source of sustainable
competitive advantage, a competency must be valuable, rare,
and difficult or costly to imitate, without an easy or direct
substitute available.
In unstable environments it is especially important to
continually develop strategies that will yield an advantage
over your competition that will cause you to be more
successful71. The development of intangible assets such as
learning and communication patterns, technical skills and
organizational routines are especially important as a means of
building competitive advantage within the construction
industry48. In relation to disaster management it is most
appropriate to draw a parallel here between competitive
(38)
Vol. 2 (3) July (2009)
advantage and best practice. If an NGO leads the field in
reconstruction best practice, they will satisfy both clients
(beneficiaries) and donors and receive good press leading to
increased confidence from stakeholders and increased
funding in future. In effect an NGO displaying best practice
(achieving competitive advantage) is much more likely to
thrive in the modern world. Such an organization must be
very strategically aware.
Mintzberg argues that all strategies lie somewhere
between deliberate (intended, planned) and emergent
(realized without intention)46. Fig. 1 illustrates Mintzberg’s
model of strategic thinking. In theory, a pure deliberate
strategy is that which is realized exactly as intended; there
must be precise organisational intentions which are accepted
among all actors and no external interference (market,
technological, political etc.). A pure emergent strategy is that
which is realized with the complete absence of intention
about it; this is unlikely within organizations but could
happen if a particular environment directly imposes a pattern
of action on an organization. Thompson urges the importance
of the study of learning and involvement in people as part of
an emergent strategy44.
Among the strategies outlined in Mintzberg and
Water’s47 framework for organizations, NGOs can be seen as
adopting a strategy having most in common with the
ideological strategy. This can profoundly affect their
reconstruction operations. Among NGOs, the members of any
organization generally share a collective vision and identify
with it so strongly that it becomes the driving force behind
their actions. The fact that fulfilling the vision is paramount
to these organizations is manifested in certain aspects of their
operation, as demonstrated, for example, by the imposition of
unsuitable housing solutions based on what NGO ‘experts’
decide is correct20, 65. In most cases an ideology clearly
informs intentions as part of a deliberate strategy.
Collective vision is difficult to change or to adapt, as
this would call for all who share the vision to change their
collective mind. In some cases this may be possible, but with
large NGOs rooted in ideology, any change to strategy which
is not in line with the collective vision will meet opposition.
External forces will not be allowed to affect an ideological
strategy, as by its very nature it strives instead to change the
environment or insulate the organization from the
environment. Ideological strategy is therefore highly
deliberate and this study hypothesizes that a more emergent
strategy such as the process strategy could improve
performance significantly.
The process strategy is well suited to an environment
which is complex, unpredictable and uncontrollable. This is
exactly what faces NGOs in post-disaster scenarios. As part
of a process strategy, the leadership of an organization can
exercise a degree of deliberate behaviour by controlling the
process of strategy formation, while leaving the content of
Disaster Advances
strategy to others. The leadership may create the
organizational structure and appoint staff of its choice
(deliberate) but with a view to allowing those staff to develop
their own adaptive and innovative strategies (emergent). The
process strategy can therefore be referred to as deliberately
emergent44.
Brews and Purohit10 point to a link between unstable
environments and improved performance in certain types of
planning. Planning increases as environmental instability
grows. The planning types encouraging most improved
performance in organizations operating in unstable
environments are generative and transactive planning,
representing adaptation and innovation within organiza-
tions46. In generative planning, project / service/ process
innovation is the key and all organizational plans are assessed
through this lens of innovation. Meanwhile, transactive
planning involves plans which are formed on an ongoing
basis based on continual adaptation and feedback/learning.
Resource-based view: The currently dominant view of
strategy is the resource-based theory. Traditional strategy
models, such as Michael Porter's five forces model54, all
focus on a company's external competitive environment.
Most neglect to look inside the company. In contrast, the
resource-based perspective highlights the need for a fit
between the external market context in which a company
operates and its internal capabilities. It views the organization
as a collection of unique skills and capabilities that influence
strategic growth and organizational evolution54.
This concept was first developed by Wernerfelt70 in
1984 and has since evolved into the dominant school of
strategic thought39, 65. According to this view, a company's
competitive advantage derives from its ability to assemble
and exploit an appropriate combination of resources.
Sustainable competitive advantage is achieved by
continuously developing existing and creating new resources
and capabilities in response to rapidly changing market
conditions. Some management experts suggest that
organizations’ internal processes create ‘resource bundles’.
Sustainable competitive advantage is created when
competitors cannot duplicate a unique resource
configuration6, 70.
Kay33 once again draws our attention again to a fact
which is generally agreed upon by experts in the field of
strategy: “Business strategy is concerned with the match
between the internal capabilities of the company and its
external environment”. NGOs operating in post-disaster
scenarios are faced with extremely unstable environments.
From local economic conditions to regional politics, all areas
of society face chaos in the aftermath of a disaster. To
effectively match such an environment, the internal
capabilities of an organization must be flexible, adaptive and
diverse.
(39)
Vol. 2 (3) July (2009)
Barney6 categorizes organizational resources into
three categories; physical capital resources (location,
equipment, access to materials etc.), human capital resources
(training, experience, judgment etc. of managers and
workers) and organizational capital resources (structure,
planning, coordinating systems etc.)33. These resources
enable an organization to conceive of and implement
strategies that improve efficiency and effectiveness6. Under
certain conditions these resources become a source of
sustained competitive advantage for the organization.
Competence-based view: Competency frameworks are an
essential vehicle for achieving organizational performance.
Competency frame-works can be defined as ‘represent(ing)
the language of performance in an organization, articulating
both the expected outcomes of an individual’s efforts and the
manner in which the activities are carried out’.28 A major
outcome of this research will be the development of a
competency framework, dynamic in nature which will guide
NGO’s undertaking reconstruction projects.
Turner and Crawford66 point out that not-for-profit
organizations are operating in an environment of growing
economic pressure and need to display efficiency and
productivity in order to compete for resources, while it is
imperative that they deliver the expected outcomes. Further
investigation using this theoretical framework will enable a
set of competencies to be defined that will drive corporate
renewal, laying out strategies that will enable managers to
embed these competencies into their firms.
In a business environment, an organization must
have, or develop, competencies that will give it competitive
advantage in a particular market. It needs to create for itself a
strategic position in that market, while putting in place the
relevant competencies that will help maintain that position.
The resources of such an organization must be fully utilized
to develop capabilities which form competencies while
driving change. Competencies must be valuable, rare and
difficult or costly to imitate, without an easy or direct
substitute available if they are to yield sustainable
competitive advantage71.
Dynamic Capabilities view: Hafeez26 identified contempo-
rary strategic manage-ment approaches by which an
organization could gain competitive advantage. In the context
of post-disaster reconstruction, competitive advantage could
be likened to an NGO leading the way in reconstruction best
practice. Hafeez argues that a dynamic capabilities approach
will deploy and exploit resources, capabilities and
competencies that are unique to an organization.
To pursue a dynamic capabilities view, an
organization must be well equipped to reconfigure its
operations to respond to changing environments. The ability
of an NGO to be innovative and adaptive will be largely
Disaster Advances
influenced by the current competence levels of the
organization. Eisenhardt and Martin21 refer to dynamic
capabilities as ‘simple, unstable processes that rely on quickly
created new knowledge and iterative execution to produce
adaptive, but unpredictable outcomes’.
63
Teece et al are main advocates of the ‘dynamic
capabilities’ perspective and argue that it is the primary part
of what an organization needs to do to achieve optimum
performance and growth. It is an extension of the resource-
based view, reasoning that organizations implementing the
resource-based view have competitive advantage in
environments of rapid change based on the dynamic
capabilities they develop and nurture within the organization.
These are defined as capabilities that ensure that an
organization can adapt and change quickly and therefore
perform better and grow. The resource-based view is the
original assumption that organizations must match their
internal resources to the external environment. The
competence-based view suggests that an organization must
create for itself a strategic position within a market and
embed distinctive competencies to maintain that position. The
dynamic capabilities view links these together. A dynamic
capabilities approach will deploy and exploit resources,
renewing capabilities and developing competencies.
Key33 collective capabilities in organizations form
competencies. Capability is defined by Hafeez as ‘the ability
to make use of resources to perform some task or activity’. In
terms of reconstruction, resources may be physical resources
(e.g. building materials, tools, financial endowment), human
resources (e.g. labour skills, training, field experience) or
organizational resources (e.g. NGO status/image, policies/
processes)6. Jurie30 defined organizational capacity as ‘the
inherent endowment possessed by individuals or organiza-
tions to achieve their fullest potential.’ Capability,
meanwhile, is the action taken on capacity to realize this
potential while competence is attained by developing
capability and expanding capacity.
Thompson65 summarizes that organizations must
display strength of resources facilitating distinctive
capabilities thus forming strategic competencies, all of which
create superior competitive position & performance. Each of
the three views discussed have important elements which
feed into the new theoretical framework. However, none of
these could in isolation equip an organization to pursue best
practice in reconstruction. When the three are seen as
complimentary views, it enables us to develop a more
complete theoretical framework for NGOs involved in post-
disaster reconstruction that will contribute to best practice
upon implementation.
Project Management of NGOs in Post-Disaster
Reconstruction
Project Management as a theoretical field has been
(40)
Vol. 2 (3) July (2009)
described as a set of models and techniques for the planning
and control of complex undertakings50. First we must
consider the nature of a project and when a project
management approach might be utilized.
Project Management is the art of directing and
coordinating human and material resources throughout the
life of a project by using modern management techniques to
achieve predetermined objectives of scope, cost, time,
quality, and participant satisfaction53.
Unique and complex undertakings which are limited
in terms of time and scope, such as constructing a building or
fighting a battle, are seen as projects, as are many business
activities. In most project management literature12, 42, 49, the
project is defined as: a unique, one-time task with a
predetermined delivery date, being subject to performance
goals and consisting of a number of complex and/or
interdependent activities.
Within NGOs, a ‘project cycle’ approach is widely
applied (Fig. 2). This form of project management represents
a continuous process in which each phase provides the
foundation for the next. For example, during implementation
the monitoring phase provides inputs that allow the NGO to
adapt the original project design, thus modifying the
implementation plans.
NGOs each have their own policies and procedures
to govern their practice. Within reconstruction, strategies and
methods are further varied. Reconstruction may be financed
as an outright gift to beneficiaries, as partial financial support
or as a loan. While some NGOs may use local contractors to
build houses, others may provide cash to beneficiaries to
rebuild their own houses, while still others may inject cash
into the local economy through cash-for-work schemes4, 17.
Literature touching on project management covers
an extremely diverse range of topics such as risk analysis,
project leadership, investment planning, group dynamics,
human resource management etc.53 It is therefore clear that
any NGO reconstruction project should have a competent
project manager at the helm.
Kreiner insists that key concepts from organizational
theory such as learning, participation, renewal and innovation
must feature more prominently in modern project
management thinking if it is to move forward and develop37.
Project management knowledge is applicable to any sort of
project in all kinds of industries and environments22. While a
construction project may differ from a product manufacturing
project in terms of outcomes and knowledge requirements,
for the purposes of planning, controlling and leading the
projects are run along the same principles.
Project management is an important part of post-
disaster reconstruction. It brings a structure to the process and
sets clear objectives and deliverables. However, there are
Disaster Advances
drawbacks to using a project management approach. Project
management is often applied as a general theory whether
dealing with well defined, easily planned projects or
unpredictable and ambiguous ones.66 Projects are generally
divided into three stages; development, implementation and
termination.50 Fig. 3 shows the relationship between these
stages and the project management theories behind each. In
this diagram, the theoretical field of project management is
described in terms of the planning, controlling and evaluation
theories.
Planning is at the core of any project. Lock41 tells us
that it is assumed that a project task must be clearly defined
and unambiguous. If the project is externally allocated and
the task and goals restricting the operation are defined, all
efforts of the project manager can be directed towards using
the organizations resources efficiently to achieve the project
objectives. A project manager will then construct a work
breakdown structure, identifying the activities that must be
performed to fulfill the project task50.
Reconstruction projects are initiated as a response to
the needs of a disaster-affected community. After assessing
the situation and if an NGO has the mandate, capacity and
skills to implement a housing intervention, there are several
key parts of the planning phase. Key actors must be identified
and local community and NGO resources must be assessed in
relation to the needs of the project, from human resources to
local construction technology.4 Careful project planning and
development will ensure that realistic objectives are proposed
for the project.
Project control, meanwhile, concentrates on the
organization of projects and follow-up plans. Research in this
area has focused mainly on two issues: conflict and
communication. Some researchers view conflict as
dysfunctional2 while others see it as a catalyst for innovation
and renewal provided it is administered in small doses5, 12. It
is generally agreed that project effectiveness is strongly
linked to the quality of communication within the project
organization and to the environment. 32, 67
In the aftermath of the Asian Tsunami, more than
500 humanitarian organizations vied for position and donor
support, causing a great degree of confusion and in some
cases conflict between organizations. Kapucu31 points to
evidence of collaboration between NGOs and other actors;
indeed this is the case, however such action is inconsistent at
best. During implementation, agencies must also strive to
maintain clear and consistent assessment criteria by which to
make decisions and facilitate transparency44. When NGOs
can cooperate and share information in a reconstruction
context, it will without a doubt foster best practice.
The evaluation of successful projects is generally not
undertaken and much existing research involves the
evaluation of project failure. If a project meets objectives in
(41)
Vol. 2 (3) July (2009)
terms of cost, time and performance, most organizations do
not ask why it was successful. When a project fails, the fault
does not usually lay with the project manager, based on
existing case studies. It is generally the initiators or owners of
the projects who have in one way or another caused the
project to become problematic.27
In discussing disaster management we have looked
at what a successful reconstruction project should achieve in
terms of both construction and social and community
development. Projects fail to various degrees for many
reasons such as unrealistic donor targets combined with lack
of understanding of long-term needs and the high
expectations of beneficiaries and host countries. Projects can
be evaluated by how successful they are at helping
communities return to normality. The ability of an NGO to
mobilize local resources and involve local actors will build
community capacity and resilience.35 Many NGOs do carry
out evaluations of their projects and as one would expect,
these generally put across an optimistic picture. These self
evaluations are used as a tool to promote transparency and
accountability and helps NGOs raise more funds for future
projects. Can such self evaluations give a true picture of
project success or failure?
Organizations implementing reconstruction projects
knowingly or unknowingly use a degree of project
management in their approach and this must be recognized to
fully take advantage of such a position. An NGO that can
plan, control and evaluate projects effectively will be best
placed to deliver efficient projects that meet their aims and
objectives.
A New Competency-Based Theoretical Frame-
work for NGOs in Post-Disaster Reconstruction
Bringing together all that has been discussed into a
theoretical framework is the primary objective of this paper.
As illustrated in fig. 4, the framework draws on existing
theory from the fields of post-disaster reconstruction,
strategic management and project management. This
framework will guide further research studies in order to
develop and enhance the competency-based theory and affect
the practice of NGOs in post-disaster reconstruction.
In looking at post-disaster reconstruction as one part
of the framework, we bring the essential concepts and issues
surrounding reconstruction in the humanitarian sector into
play, an essential part of the study. We can see that existing
research and practice has not translated to high standards in
reconstruction. By investigating the barriers that NGOs face
and the existing management strategies they employ, it will
be much clearer to see where the integration of theories from
the other sectors of management will contribute to positive
change within organizations.
Strategic Management, meanwhile, introduces a
number of theories and concepts which, if integrated into
their thinking, can dramatically alter the way NGOs approach
Disaster Advances
reconstruction projects. Further research will pinpoint the
management decisions and strategies that have the greatest
affect on outcomes and the competency-based model will
point to a better way to build, renew and deploy
competencies. It is vital to bring into the framework elements
of Project Management theory, because reconstruction is
generally project based and most NGOs operate in a project
cycle framework. Project Manage-ment brings structure to a
reconstruction programme, allowing NGOs to plan, control
and evaluate projects.
Applying a combination of the management theories
which have been discussed to NGOs in reconstruction, we
can see that in the pursuit of best practice these organizations
must become more adaptive and innovative. Central issues to
address in any organizational shift will be capacity,
capabilities and competences, which, in this theoretical
framework, must become more dynamic in nature. In this
context, a ‘dynamic’ organization will be flexible, adapt to
unstable environments and possess competences that will
help them address multiple barriers. Warren G. Bennis8 made
this comment on the future 40 years ago, ‘teaching how to
live with ambiguity, to identify with the adaptive process, to
make a virtue out of contingency, and to be self-directing-
these will be the tasks of education, the goals of maturity, and
the achievement of the successful individual’. These words
clearly apply today to NGOs involved in reconstruction
projects, as they do to all organizations which foster change
and renewal.
How then do we apply these principles to NGOs
undertaking reconstruction projects? At present NGOs can
utilize the very general advice on shelter given in the Sphere
Handbook45, 72 when undertaking any humanitarian work,
including reconstruction projects, alongside organization
specific guides and local building codes and standards. The
Sphere Handbook contains mainly technical advice and
minimum standards in planning, design and construction but
does not go far enough in terms of suggesting appropriate
strategies or identifying essential organizational capabilities
and competencies. NGOs are not bound by the standards set
out in the Sphere handbook but rather use it as a guide during
their project cycle.
The key is to break down the important theories in
the arena of management and bring together a new
framework that NGOs can understand. By validating such a
model, NGOs can feel confident to implement these concepts
of transformation and support an organizational shift. Many
UK NGOs have admitted to failures during tsunami
reconstruction and their shortcomings can be explained to
some degree by the lack of a competency-based framework
within their organizations. This theoretical framework has the
potential to facilitate further research, encouraging wide-
spread movement towards better practice in reconstruction.
Conclusion
Findings should be set in the context of the study
hypothesis, that is: by building organizational capacity,
(42)
Vol. 2 (3) July (2009)
capabilities and competences to be dynamic in nature, while
focusing on a more emergent strategic approach, as compared
to traditional strategic planning, with emphasis on adaptive
capability and innovation, NGOs will be much better
equipped to move forward with reconstruction projects that
all stakeholders can have confidence in. Key findings are:
• NGOs can not implement sustainable reconstruction
projects working within the current restraints, therefore a
shift in donor/ government/ beneficiary mindset is
necessary to secure commitment to construction looking
at reducing long-term vulnerability and building
community capacity.
• Humanitarian NGOs are organizations rooted in ideology
and do have the beneficiaries’ best interests at heart,
however, within their funding framework something of
their purpose is often lost to the need to survive in an
increasingly competitive environment.
• Although reconstruction may lay well outside most
NGOs comfort zones, if they are in a position where the
implementation of reconstruction projects is essential,
the barriers faced through lack of organizational
knowledge or experience can be offset by management
practices and strategic decisions, leading to best practice
and allowing greater accountability.
• In reconstruction projects, NGOs behave as inward
looking organizations which deploy resources into
unstable environments which they often can not fully
understand and consequently often deploy inappropriate
‘resource bundles’ which do not adequately address the
external environment, thereby inhibiting best practice
(competitive advantage).
• In an environment in which they are expected to compete
for funding in part by delivering projects on a short
timescale, NGOs often fall down in the pursuit of best
practice. A drive for change within organizations,
developing new competencies, would improve efficiency
and productivity in reconstruction.
• NGOs are not currently implementing the dynamic
capabilities view or displaying innovation or adaptation
in the development of competencies, because they are
unable to reconcile this view with their existing
organizational strategies. Consequently it is exceedingly
difficult for NGOs to achieve best practice in
reconstruction.
• NGOs could improve efficiency in reconstruction by
ensuring that they either employ already or bring in
project managers, yielding greater stability to projects
and enabling organizations to set performance goals and
meet defined objectives.
• NGOs are at present implementing reconstruction
projects to various degrees of success having utilized
organization specific strategies and tools. However, by
obtaining a clear structure of the process from a project
Disaster Advances
management perspective and strategic rationale from
organizational theory, NGOs can obtain an advantage in
the pursuit of better practice.
• By developing the capacity to plan, control and evaluate
projects effectively, NGOs will be best placed to deliver
efficient projects that meet their aims and objectives and
contribute to the lasting recovery of affected
communities.
Vol. 2 (3) July (2009)
the practices of construction management to their own
organizations and programmes for reconstruction. This
theoretical framework has the potential to drive further
empirical studies into NGO competencies in post-disaster
reconstruction. Such research would be exceedingly useful to
NGOs involved in reconstruction projects as they strive
towards better practice and mould their operational and
organizational structures.

In recent years, NGOs have played an increasing

role in reconstruction projects in disaster affected areas. From
the literature it is clear that such projects have not been
managed efficiently in many cases and that some NGOs do
not possess the operational and organizational competencies
that are vital to best practice, however much knowledge they
might bring in terms of the humanitarian sector.
Teece63 defines dynamic capabilities as, ‘the ability
to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external Note: diagram from Mintzberg and Waters47
competences to address rapidly changing environments’.
Based on the theoretical framework, it is clear that NGOs can Fig. 1: A model of strategic thinking
and should apply the theories of strategic management and

Fig. 2: A Project Cycle Approach

tsunami, Humanitarian Policy Group, London (2006)
2. Archibald R.D., Managing High-Technology Programmes and
Projects, Wiley, New York (1992)
3. Ardie A., NGOs and post-disaster reconstruction- Solving
logistics problems with clear policies, Ethical Corporation,
www.ethicalcorp.com (2006)
4. Barakat S., Housing Reconstruction after Conflict and Disaster,
Humanitarian Practice Network, London (2003)
5. Barker J., Tjosvold D. and Andrews I.R., Conflict Approaches
Note: diagram from Packendorff50 of Effective and Ineffective Project Managers: A Field Study in a
Matrix Organization, Journal of Management Studies, 25 (2), 167-
Fig. 3: Research foci of traditional project manage- 178 (1988)
ment research
6. Barney J., Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive
Advantage, Journal of Management, 17(1), 99 (1991)
References
7. Bello W., The Rise of the Relief-And-Reconstruction Complex,
1. Adams L. and Harvey P., Learning from cash responses to the
Journal of International Affairs, 59(2), 281-296 (2006)

(43)
Disaster Advances
Resource-based View
Strategic Management Dynamic Capabilities View
Competence-based View
Fig. 4: Competency-based Framework for Post-disaster Reconstruction
8. Bennis W.G., Interpersonal Dynamics; Essays and Readings on
Human Interaction, The Dorsey Press, Homewood, Illinois (1968)
9. Boen T. and Jigyasu R., Cultural Considerations for Post Disaster
Reconstruction: Post-Tsunami Challenges, UNDP Conference,
www.adpc.net (2005)
10. Brews P. and Purohit D., Strategic Planning in Unstable
Environments, Long Range Planning, 40(1), 64-83 (2007)
11. Broadbent S.G. and Broadbent D.M., Traditional vs Modern
Construction Practices, International Conference and Student
Competition on post-disaster reconstruction "Planning for
reconstruction" April 22-23, Coventry, UK (2004)
12. Butler A. G. Jr., Project Management: A Study in Organizational
Conflict, Academy of Management Journal, 16(1), 84-101 (1973)
13. Cannon T., Vulnerability Analysis and the Explanation of
‘Natural’ Disasters, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 13-30 (1994)
14. Canny B., A Review of NGO Coordination in Aceh Post
Earthquake/Tsunami, International Council of Voluntary Agencies,
www.humanitarianinfo.org (2005)
15. Casey M., Failure of tsunami reconstruction leaves humanitarian
agencies under fire, The Lanka Academic, Colombo (2006)
16. Constance P., Lessons learned or lessons lost? IDB America,
www.iadb.org (1999)
17. Davidson C. and Johnson C., The Dilemma of Well-Meaning
Help That Costs Too Much, IF Research Group Université de
Montreal, Florence, Italy (2006)
18. Doocy S.E.A., Implementing cash for work programmes in post-
tsunami Aceh: experiences and lessons learned, Disasters, 30(3),
277-296 (2006)
19. Duyne Barenstein J., Challenges and risks in post-tsunami
housing reconstruction in Tamil Nadu, Humanitarian Practice
Network, www.odihpn.org (2006)
20. Duyne Barenstein J. and Pittet D., Post-disaster housing
reconstruction: Current trends and sustainable alternatives for
tsunami-affected communities in coastal Tamil Nadu (2007)
21. Eisenhardt K.M. and Martin J.A., Dynamic Capabilities: What
Are They? Special Issue: The Evolution of Firm Capabilities,
Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11), 1105-1121(2000)
22. Engwall M., Project Management and ambiguity: findings from
a comparative case study, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 173 (1992)
23. Garcia R. et al., Sustainable resorts: learning from the 2004
tsunami, Disaster Prevention and Management, 15(3), 429 (2006)
24. Goyder H., Christian Aid Tsunami Evaluation, Christian Aid,
(44)
Vol. 2 (3) July (2009)
Disaster Management
Dynamic Competency Framework Best Practice
Project Management
http://www.christianaid.org.uk/emergencies/past/tsunami/eval
uation.aspx (2007)
25. Grant N.K., Emergency management training and education for
public administrators, Charles T. Thomas, Chicago, IL, 313 (1996)
26. Hafeez K., Core competence for sustainable competitive
advantage: a structured methodology for identifying core
competence, Engineering Management, 49(1), 28-35 (2002)
27. Hall P., Great Planning Disasters, Weidenfeld and Nicholson,
London (1980)
28. Hogg C., Competency and competency frameworks, The
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London (2007)
29. Holman M., Welcome to the aid business! openDemocracy,
http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-frica_democracy/
NGO_2630.jsp (2005)
30. Jurie J.D., Building capacity, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 13(3), 264 (2000)
31. Kapucu N., Non-profit response to catastrophic disasters,
Administration Science Quarterly, 16(4), 551-561 (2007)
32. Katz R., The Effects of Group Longevity on Project Communi-
cation and Performance, Administration Science Quarterly, 27(1),
81-104 (1982)
33. Kay J., Mastering Strategy: Resource Based Strategy, Financial
Times, London (1999)
34. Kilby P., The strength of networks: the local NGO response to
the tsunami in India, Disasters, 32(1), 120-130 (2008)
35. King D., Organisations in disaster, Natural Hazards, 40(3), 657-
665 (2007)
36. Knutson T.R. and Tuleya R.E., Impact of CO2-induced warming
on simulated hurricane intensity and precipitation: Sensitivity to the
choice of climate model and convective parameterization, Journal of
Climate, 17(18), 3477-3495 (2004)
37. Kreiner K., The Postmodern Epoch of Organization Theory,
International Studies of Management and Organization, 22(2), 37-
52 (2008)
38. Kreps G.A., Organizing for emergency management,
International City Management Association, Washington, 30 (1991)
39. Lei D., Hitt M.A. and Bettis R., Dynamic core competencies
through meta-learning and strategic context, Journal of
Management, 22(4), 549-569 (1996)
40. Lizarralde G. and Boucher M.F., Learning from Post-Disaster
Reconstruction for Pre-Disaster Planning, International Conference
and Student Competition on post-disaster reconstruction "Planning
Disaster Advances
for reconstruction" April 22-23, Coventry, UK (2004)
41. Lock D., Project Management, Gower, Aldershot, UK (1992)
42. Lundin R.A., Incentives for chief executives to manage by
projects, MANZ, Vienna, 48-53 (1990)
43. Marsh G., Buckle P. and Smale S., The Concept of Community
in Community Capability and Disaster Management, International
Conference and Student Competition on post-disaster reconstruction
"Planning for reconstruction" April 22-23, Coventry, UK (2004)
44. McGirk J., Western NGOs and the tsunami test, open Demo-
cracy, http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-climate_
change_debate/tsunami_3139.jsp (2005)
45. Mills J., Bourne M. and Neely A.D., Strategy and Performance,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)
46. Mintzberg, H., Tracking Strategies: Toward a General Theory,
Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007)
47. Mintzberg H. and Waters J.A., Of Strategies, Deliberate and
Emergent, Strategic Management Journal, 6(3), 257-272 (1985)
48. Mooney A., Core Competence, Distinctive Competence, and
Competitive Advantage: What Is the Difference? Journal of
Education for Business, 83(2), 110-115 (2007)
49. Morris P. W. G. and Hough G.H., The anatomy of major
projects: a study of the reality of project management, Wiley,
Chichester, UK (1987)
50. Packendorff J., Inquiring into the temporary organization: New
directions for project management research, Scandinavian Journal
of Management, 11(4), 319-333 (1995)
51. Paton D., Disaster preparedness: a social-cognitive perspective,
Disaster Prevention and Management, 12(3), 210-216 (2003)
52. Paton D. et al, Disaster response: risk, vulnerability and
resilience, Disaster Prevention and Management, 9(3), 173 (2000)
53. PMI Standards Committee, Project Management Body of
Knowledge, Project Management Institute, Drexel Hill, PA (1987)
54. Porter M.E., How competitive forces shape strategy, Harvard
Business Review (1979)
55. Reddy S.D., Factors Influencing the Incorporation of Hazard
Mitigation During Recovery from Disaster, Natural Hazards, 22,
September, 185-201 (2000)
56. Reich J.W., Three psychological principles of resilience in
natural disasters, Disaster Prevention and Management, 15(5), 793-
798 (2006)
57. Ribot J.C., Magalhaes A.R. and Panagides S.S., Climate
Variability: Climate Change and Social Vulnerability in the Semi-
Instructions from Publishers
It is condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to the journal have not been published
and will not be simultaneously submitted or published elsewhere. By submitting a manuscript, the
authors agree that rights for their article are transferred to the publishers. The right covers the exclusive
right to produce and distribute the article, including reprints, photographic reproductions, microform etc,
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form by
any means, without permission in writing from the publishers except for citing references.
(45)
Vol. 2 (3) July (2009)
Arid Tropics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)
58. Rossi P.H. and Wright J.D., Social science & natural hazards,
Abt Books (1981)
59. Rubin C.B. and Barbee D.G., Disaster Recovery and Hazard
Mitigation: Bridging the Intergovernmental Gap, Blackwell
Publishing Limited, 57-63 (1985)
60. Schipper L. and Pelling, M., Disaster risk, climate change and
international development: scope for, and challenges to, integration,
Disasters, 30 (1), 19-38 (2006)
61. Schneider R.O., Hazard mitigation and sustainable community
development, Disaster Prevention and Management, 11, September,
141-147 (2002)
62. Sphere Project, Sphere project: Humanitarian Charter and
Minimum Standards in Disaster Response, Oxfam, Oxford (2004)
63. Teece D.J. et al, Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic
Management, Strategic Management Journal, 18 (7), 509 (1997)
64. Telford J. and Cosgrave J., The international humanitarian
system and the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunamis,
Disasters, 31(1), 1-28 (2007)
65. Thompson J., Strategic Management: Awareness and Change,
Thomson Learning, London (2005)
66. Turner D. and Crawford M., Change Power- Capabilities That
Drive Corporate Renewal, Business & Professional Publishing,
NSW, Australia (1998)
67. Tushman M.L., Technical Communication in R & D
Laboratories: The Impact of Project Work Characteristics, Academy
of Management Journal, 21(4), 624-645 (1978)
68. UNDP, Reducing Disaster Risk: A Challenge for Development,
UNDP, Geneva (2004)
69. Webster P.J. et al, Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration,
and intensity in a warming environment, Science, 309 (5742), 1844
(2005)
70. Wernerfelt B., A Resource-Based View of the Firm, Strategic
Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180 (1984)
71. Wilcox King A. and Zeithaml C.P., Competencies and firm
performance: examining the causal ambiguity paradox, Strategic
Management Journal, 22(1), 75-99 (2001)
72. Young H. and Harvey P., The Sphere Project: The Humanitarian
Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response: Introduction,
Disasters, 28(2), 99 (2004).
(Received 5th April 2009, revised 10th June 2009,
accepted 30th June 2009)