International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 19–31

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

The success dimensions of international development projects:

the perceptions of African project coordinators
Amadou Diallo, Denis Thuillier*
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), École des Sciences de la Gestion, Département de Management et Technologie, 315 Ste Catherine Est,
CP 6192, Montréal (Qué.) Canada H3C 4R2

Received 5 February 2002; received in revised form 20 September 2002; accepted 17 January 2003

Abstract
Success factors and success dimensions on which projects are evaluated have been discussed widely in literature. An analysis of
the perceptions of coordinators of international development projects has not been examined thus far, especially in Africa. This
paper characterises the dimensions of success (and their hierarchy) for such projects, as perceived by project coordinators in sub-
Saharan Africa using data collected by questionnaires. The research is unique in the sense that it determines the hierarchy of the
dimensions of the principal stakeholders (task managers in the international aid agencies, local officials, project team, steering
committee, beneficiaries, etc.) exclusively from the perspective of the project coordinator. The methodological approach precludes
hasty generalisation when it comes to generalising findings to other stakeholders, but the coordinators cognition unveils its specific
structure and demonstrate a good understanding of other stakeholders’ agendas. The results confirm the importance of manage-
ment dimensions (time, cost, quality) but paradoxically the project impacts are rated in last position for the coordinators. In addi-
tion, the dimensions related to the political environment of the international development community plays a significant role in the
perception of project success as the project coordinator must satisfy more than one ‘‘client’’ in such projects financed by multilateral
institutions.
# 2003 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Project success; Dimensions; Criteria; International development; Evaluation; World Bank; Project manager; Africa

1. Introduction increasingly more in health, education, institutional

Many projects are implemented in countries where the
managerial, economic and political environment differs
largely from what we are used to in developed countries.
This is particularly the case in international aid projects
financed by multilateral development agencies (World
Bank, United Nations, European Union, etc.) or by the
bilateral system (USAID, French Cooperation, DFID,
CIDA, etc.). The World Bank group is currently super-
vising approximately 1500 projects under implemen-
tation. The countries receiving international assistance
are mainly located in sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa
and the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Central and Latin
America and Central Europe. Aid is shared among dif-
ferent sectors that cover government prerogatives: uti-
lities, infrastructure, transportation but also
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-514-987-3000x7783.
E-mail address: thuillier.denis@uqam.ca (D. Thuillier).
0263-7863/03/$30.00 # 2003 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(03)00008-5
reform, etc. The projects generally last from three to five
years but there is a trend to fund up to 10 years pro-
grams. They can be prolonged depending upon the
findings of the ‘‘end of project’’ evaluation. A project is
managed by a coordinator (or director or project man-
ager), appointed by the government. The coordinator is
often a civil servant, although there are exceptions. The
coordinator manages a team of national collaborators.
There are seven stakeholders (subcontractors, experts
and consultants excluded) in an international develop-
ment project:
1. The coordinator himself, the head of the project
management unit. He is in charge of the oper-
ations.
2. The task manager located in the headquarters of
the multilateral development agency, supervises
the project’s implementation and makes sure that
the guidelines of the institution are strictly
20 A. Diallo, D. Thuillier / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 19–31
respected by the project’s national management
unit.
3. A national supervisor who is a high-ranking civil
servant or sometimes the minister himself, to
whom the coordinator reports.
4. A project team which is directly under the coor-
dinator’s authority. The team is not really an
external actor but no matter what it’s influence,
the coordinator cannot function effectively
without the project team.
5. A steering committee which acts as an interface
with the local institutional system and the lower
levels of government concerned directly or
indirectly with the project.
6. The beneficiaries who are theoretically the ‘‘cli-
ent’’ of the project. They should always influence
the direction of the project but they often have
little impact owing to the lack of representative
authorities or organizations. However the Social
Fund’s design is worthy of note here [1].
7. The population at large. They are voters and it is
important to have them support the project, even
in countries where democratic rule is not yet
firmly established. The political dimension of
development projects is further elaborated here-
after.
Significant results have been obtained for the past
decades in the sectors of health, rural development and
education. The success of aid projects however is gen-
erally considered below acceptable levels considering the
amount of financing involved. The projects and pro-
grams expost facto evaluations reports prepared by the
World Bank show a number of problems listed by
Youker [2] who particularly underlines:
 the lack of shared perception and agreement on
the objectives of the projects by staff and stake-
holders
 the lack of commitment by the team, manage-
ment and stakeholders
 the lack of detailed, realistic, and current project
plans within organisations not structured for
project management
 unclear lines of authority and responsibility
 the lack of adequate resources
 poor feedback and control mechanisms for early
detection of problems
 poor or no analysis of major risk factors
 delays caused by bureaucratic administration
systems
The first observation above is a fundamental one. The
nature of the problem is more political than technical. A
development project can be considered both social and
political. It is social because its objective is to directly or
indirectly improve the wealth of the population. It is
political because some project options (choice of specific
regions or of targets-groups, inputs, etc. . .) express
political decisions made by the multilateral development
agencies with the assistance, whether sincere or under
duress, of national political leaders and policy makers.
A coordinator himself is implicitly positioned as a poli-
tical player when appointed as project manager:
 he barely participates in the design of the project.
He must therefore adhere to the decisions made
by others during the appraisal and may have to
manage subtly during the project implemen-
tation.
 he enjoys a high profile position for a limited
duration (i.e. 3–5 years) and may have personal
motivation to foster a relationship with either the
local authority or the task manager in an effort to
further his career. This behaviour may not
necessarily negatively impact the project as the
objectives of the project correspond to those of
the coordinator. However the coordinator has
implicit personal objectives above and beyond
those of the project.
A coordinator of an aid program or project in a
developing country is fully aware of the dimensions of
evaluation used for projects financed by multilateral
agencies. He therefore knows that the project will be
judged on objective dimensions. He will thus make an
effort to perform adequately on these dimensions.
However, the socio-political and cultural context in
which the project operates is specific, in particular when
it occurs in a strong culture with clearly defined social
operating modes. This is especially the case for projects
in Africa. The concept of success from the coordinator’s
perspective can then be measured on unexpected
dimensions. Some of these dimensions cannot be justi-
fied explicitly during the evaluation and consequently
are never commented upon nor discussed in manage-
ment literature. It is in this context that the present
research tries:
 to highlight the hierarchy of principal dimensions
that drive the actions of coordinators of multi-
lateral development project in sub-Saharan
Africa;
 to explain the project performance on these
dimensions as a function of specific variables;
and
 to understand the coordinator’s perceptions of
the main stakeholders dimensions hierarchy.
Evaluation dimensions and their prioritisation are
often if not always fixed by external actors. We take a
different and unique approach. As the coordinator is
 A. Diallo, D. Thuillier / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 19–31
central to the project, we strive to learn in this research
his own understanding of the situation.
The paper is divided into three sections and is orga-
nised as follows. Firstly the literature on project success
and success dimensions is reviewed and questions and
tentative assumptions pertaining to the specific envir-
onment of international development projects are for-
mulated. The methodology used is the subject of Section
3 and the results of the empirical analysis are discussed
in Section 4. The conclusion presents some suggestions
for further research on success factors for development
projects.
2. Success factors and success dimensions
The concept of success in projects has been widely
discussed in management literature and has been central
to the literature of project management [3]. The dimen-
sions (criteria) upon which one appreciates success and
the factors of success themselves have been the focus of
more study. [4–7]. Success can indeed be evaluated only
when the evaluation dimensions are adequately defined.
For the project manager, evaluation dimensions gen-
erally correspond to the traditional constraints. That is
to say, a project is usually considered a success if its
implementation complies with the usual constraints of
time, cost and the client’s terms of reference or ‘‘qual-
ity’’. Here one can identify the influence of the con-
struction and engineering sectors; sectors upon which
project management has structured itself for the past
centuries. In these professions, success is judged pri-
marily through the assessment of the technical quality
of outputs and through the evaluation of the manage-
ment performance whose dimensions are objective, per-
fectly defined and well-accepted. The classical project
manager does not view his project beyond the scope of
his professional duties and responsibilities.
The client’s agenda is significantly different. Either a
private firm or an institution, the client cannot evaluate
the success of its project without referring to the objec-
tives that governed the conception, the formulation and
the project design The raison d’être of a project lies in
the satisfaction of one or more objectives. The client’s
perspective is therefore more of a global one. It is
important to judge the project’s success not only by
auditing the way in which the project team manages the
inputs and delivers the outputs or ‘‘project management
success’’, but also by evaluating the project’s contribu-
tion to the initial objectives or ‘‘project success’’ as sta-
ted in the logical framework [8]. Beyond time, cost and
quality, it is pertinent to consider another evaluation
dimension which we will refer to hereafter as the project
impacts since that is the accepted terminology used in
the development community. We prefer one dimension
over another, depending upon whether the evaluation is
21
performed by a project manager, a client or one of the
key stakeholders. Each stakeholder perceives the success
according to dimensions, and a hierarchy of dimensions,
that comply with his own agenda [9,10]. There is no
‘‘absolute’’ success or consistency in overall success
appreciation over time: there is only ‘‘perceived success’’
[11]. One may indeed be tempted to prioritise dimen-
sions of management when one performs an evaluation
during the project implementation. On the other hand,
one will naturally pay more attention to the economic,
political or social impacts, when the evaluation is con-
ducted at the end of the project [11]. This is even more
evident when the project evaluation is performed with a
historical perspective (refer to the voyages of antiquity
or the expeditions of the Renaissance).
Even when everybody agrees with a list of criteria,
measurement of project success remains a rather diffi-
cult task. Schedule and budget management may be
assessed through direct measures and quality manage-
ment through pass or fail criteria or some kind of char-
acteristics testing. Therefore, any stakeholder may draw
valid conclusions on project management performance.
However, client’s satisfaction is not objectively measur-
able and it is the same, i.e. for the experience gained
through the project, or the magnitude of organisational
impacts or any other benefits induced. As intervals do
not capture the subjective nature of such criteria, ordi-
nal scales with choices (Likert scales) must be designed
to collect stakeholders’ perceptions [12–14].
In spite of the differing points of view, a review of the
literature makes it possible to outline a set of evaluation
dimensions which appear regularly although not with
the same occurrence:
 respect of the three traditional constraints;
 satisfaction of the client;
 satisfaction of the objectives as outlined in the
logical framework;
 project impacts;
 institutional or organisational capacity built in
the organisation by the project;
 financial returns (in the case of productive pro-
jects) or the economic or social benefits (in the
case of public sector projects); and
 project innovative features (outputs, manage-
ment or design).
The literature, however, is rather scarce when it comes
to better understanding the hierarchy of dimensions
which support the managerial behaviour of the coordi-
nators, especially in Africa. The implementation of a
development project financed by the system of the mul-
tilateral development agencies is led by a national coor-
dinator. With the assistance of his project team and
according to the guidelines set out by the donor, the
national coordinator launches, manages and imple-
22 A. Diallo, D. Thuillier / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 19–31
ments activities defined during the planning phase of the
project. He has his own concept of success and of its
dimensions that is a function of its representation1
which is in effect a function of the coordinator’s own
social, cultural and religious background. The coordi-
nator may value certain dimensions more than others
and his hierarchy of dimensions conditions the way in
which he manages and controls the project. It appears
appropriate to further investigate to obtain a better
understanding of the coordinator’s cognitive process.
The coordinator is naturally concerned by the tradi-
tional dimensions previously noted as they constitute
many of the goals that he plans to meet. However, it can
be argued that he is also concerned by the political
dimension of his role. This concern may be from a feel-
ing of self-preservation or from social consciousness.
The ‘‘visibility’’ of the project may appear as a notice-
able dimension on which the coordinator builds his
appreciation of success. It is a specific aspect of devel-
opment projects which seems neglected and which, to
our best knowledge, has not been the subject of any
empirical research.
Everyone involved in development projects feels that
the quality of the relationship between the coordinator
and his task manager is a very important success factor
(although we were unable to find any research results or
even documentation on this point). Knowing the power
of the donor in the relationship, one may therefore
expect that the coordinator will try as much as possible
to satisfy the task manager and to perform on the
dimensions the task manager prefers. A project which is
well perceived will show fluid and efficient transactions
between the coordinator and his task manager. This is
indeed beneficial for the recipients, who in principle are
‘‘the client’’, as it is for the coordinator himself.
Although the coordinator is appointed locally, the task
manager has a say when it comes to decide who will run
an eventual phase II or III after termination of the
initial project phase. It is well known that such high
profile, high status and well-compensated positions2 are
rather scarce in Africa and one can easily understand
that a coordinator will do everything within his power
to get the support of his task manager when required.
One could raise the ethical issue of personal agendas
interfering with public service efficiency but the reality
of public sector wages, family burdens and other survi-
val challenges in poor countries are implicitly under-
stood in the development community.
The task manager, who represents the financial insti-
tution, will care a priori about beneficiaries’ satisfaction,
about the global project impact and its sustainability.
1
For more on the concept of representation (within the context of
international development) please refer to Jodelet [15] which draws
upon the seminal writings of Durckheim, Piaget, and Moscovici.
2 3
A third of the coordinators surveyed earn over $ 10 000 US/year
which is well above governmental standards in Africa (see Appendix).
We may also expect to see the task manager valuing the
efficiency of the coordinator’s day-to-day management.
Is this really the way the coordinator perceives the task
manager’s priorities? It may depend on the coordina-
tor’s interpretation3 of the explicit or implicit messages
from his task manager or other stakeholders. It is
important to recall here that the national coordinator,
an African-born, high-ranking civil servant, and the
task manager of the multilateral institution often belong
to different cultures. The quality of their communi-
cation plays a significant, if not determinant, role in the
efficiency of the management process.
This research does not focus on the quality of the
communication between actors. It is interesting however
to analyse the coordinator’s perception of the main sta-
keholders opinions on his project success and, if possi-
ble, to discuss what we could learn when investigating
‘‘what the perception of the coordinator unveils about
implicit stakeholders specific hierarchy of evaluation
dimensions’’. Traditional project evaluation does not
include the project coordinator as an evaluator but as a
resource. We take a rather different approach here as
the coordinator is the center or the project evaluation
and we strive to learn through his own subjective
understanding of the situation; through his very per-
ception of his environment. This may be considered
circular logic. It is commonly accepted however that
group members and leaders, especially in a systemic
project management context, behave on the basis of
their own perceptions more than on the basis of facts.
This raises a certain number of questions that statis-
tical treatment of an ad-hoc database may solve or
validate. They can be subdivided in three main cate-
gories:
Analysis of the coordinator’s perceptions:
Does the coordinator build his own judgement on
project success upon evaluation dimensions which
correspond to those with which we are accustomed in
standard project management? Are they in accor-
dance with what we learned either from the literature,
being aware however that what we found in the lit-
erature did not cover specifically the field of interna-
tional development, or from experience with
international development? We may expect that the
coordinator pays specific attention to the manage-
ment dimensions and to the satisfaction of the pro-
ject’s long-term objectives. However, as we
documented earlier, does the political play in which
the coordinator is de facto surrounded, influence his
appreciation of project success and take a substantial
place in the coordinator’s mindset?
For more on the concept of reception active in the international
development context see Ravault [16].
 A. Diallo, D. Thuillier / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 19–31
Analysis of the determinants of performance on suc-
cess dimensions:
Is the performance on a given dimension related to
some specific variables? We may wonder if ‘‘techni-
cal’’ projects perform significantly better or worse on
such dimensions than ‘‘non-technical’’ projects.
Similarly, we may wonder if projects managed by
coordinators with specific characteristics, such as age,
gender or language, perform better on one or more
macro-dimension. In the vacuum of empirical research
on such topics and because assumptions or hypotheses
could possibly stray from the realm of political correct-
ness, we prefer to raise only exploratory questions. It is
hoped that the statistical results will make it possible to
answer some of these questions and provide empirical
support to some generally accepted ideas on the matter.
Analysis of the dimensions hierarchy of the stake-
holders as perceived by the coordinator:
While it is difficult and costly to administer the same
questionnaire to the major stakeholders for each
project, it is important try to understand stakeholder
opinions and rationale from the coordinator’s per-
spective. It is a rather unique and exploratory
approach since we rely on the accuracy of the coor-
dinator’s perceptions. But does the coordinator per-
ceive the stakeholders’ objectives clearly and does the
analysis of these perceptions (insofar the coordinator
communicates freely) constitute a valid method for
understanding the stakeholders’ agendas?
3. Methodology
3.1. The sample, response rate and the potential biases
This research could be implemented in two ways:
either by semi-directed interviews with a certain number
of African coordinators and exploitation of the verba-
tim, or by a more normative investigation by sending a
questionnaire with statements to be ranked on Likert
scales. Owing to the excessive cost, it was not practical
to follow the first method. We decided therefore to col-
lect data by way of questionnaires delivered by mail. A
pre-addressed (but not postage paid) envelope was
included to facilitate the return of completed ques-
tionnaires. Six-hundred questionnaires in French or
English were mailed to project managers, coordinators
and directors. Three-hundred-and-fifty recipients were
francophone and two-hundred-and-fifty were anglo-
phone. We received 93 answers which is an apparent
response rate of approximately 15%. As mail sent to
institutional addresses with postal boxes in Africa often
does not reach the intended recipient, the response rate
23
from those who actually received the questionnaire may
be higher.4 However, this rate, although a modest one is
of the same magnitude to what other researchers [17–21]
got under similar mailing conditions. It can be considered
acceptable when taking into account geographical con-
siderations and the fact that we did not contact respon-
dents with a follow-up to stimulate responses.
Non respondent bias:
Descriptive statistics of the sample show that the
proportion of projects considered more or less a failure
by their coordinator is approximately 12% in the sam-
ple. This is possibly below the real failure rate for such
projects in Africa south of Sahara. This may suggest
that we face a non respondent bias as non respondents
could not respond because their project is more or less a
failure. White and Fortune [13] faced a similar situation
with a complete success rate far higher than that repor-
ted in the literature. According with usual techniques we
tested for potential links between success appreciation
and other key variables, and time to respond to the
questionnaire. Tests did not show any significance.
Generalisation of the empirical results depends on sam-
ple characteristics also, i.e. geographical distribution,
sectors either ‘‘technical’’ or ‘‘non-technical’’, project
maturity distribution, etc. We address such questions
hereafter.
Geographical distribution of respondents:
We were able to identify through postmarks responses
from 26 different countries. Ten responses being uni-
dentifiable. This is a fair score taken when taking into
consideration that:
 Most of Central Africa (Congo-Brazzaville,
République Démocratique du Congo-Zaı̈re,
République de Centrafrique, Burundi, etc. is
under political turmoil, civil war, or at best under
post-war transition with multilateral Economic
Recovery Credits. Projects are suspended sine die
or even closed;
 Morocco and Tunisia receive mostly credits
allocated to sectors, not to specific projects.
Projects stricto sensu are not easily detected.
 We did not send questionnaires to South-Africa.
The same for Nigeria and Lybia. 65% Of
responses originated from francophone countries
and 35% from anglophone former British colo-
nies or from other colonial rulers. This is con-
sistent with the initial repartition in the mailing.
It is therefore estimated that the diversity of respon-
dent countries is fairly represented in the survey and
4
Setym International mentions that approximately one out of five
project coordinator addresses in its african database requires yearly
update for changes in postal box number, project moving, etc. While
our effective response rate is obviously unknown, we may therefore
expect it to near the 20% level.
24 A. Diallo, D. Thuillier / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 19–31
that potential generalisation of research findings for
projects currently under implementation in Africa south
of Sahara is not significantly distorted by geographical
bias.
Technical and non-technical projects:
One may argue that project success and success
dimensions depend on project type and sector. This is
the reason why in the questionnaire we asked for which
sector the project belongs to (see Appendix). This
repartition looks consistent with the one of multilateral
projects portfolios. However, the limited number of
respondent prevents analysis of success and success
dimensions sector by sector. Aggregation may alter
generalisation of results. Remember that all projects in
the research share common characteristics. Although
outputs and inputs are sector related, all projects in the
survey are international development projects funded by
multilateral institutions. They share, therefore, common
finality, objectives, processes and guidelines.
Project maturity:
It is rather difficult to evaluate the success or the long-
term induced benefits of a project still in its launching
phase. As the questionnaire provides information rele-
vant to credit approval and start-up date it was possible
to assess that all projects in the sample were in fact
under ongoing implementation with a 5 year mean and
3 year standard deviation.
Social desirability:
It was emphasised by the fact that we rely on the sole
coordinators judgement. Respondents may provide
biased responses either for professional or social desir-
ability purposes or not respond owing to noticeable
failure of the project they are responsible for. Crowne
and Marlowe [22] developed a scale to assess socially
desirable responses in psychology. Their research was
further adapted to test for socially desirable behaviours
in human sciences surveys where one should rely on self
reported answers as is the case in this study. The present
research objectives do not lie in the determination of the
effective success rate for international development
projects. It focuses rather on unveiling the coordinators
success dimensions hierarchy without asking explicitly
about it. This hierarchy emerges when linking global
success as perceived, with performance on specific eva-
luations items as perceived (see Section 3.2). The
approach does not preclude biased responses for social
desirability purposes. However we expect some bias
consistency for similarly socially desirable outcomes (i.e.
success and micro-dimensions of success). This can be
considered a reasonable hypothesis [23,24].
3.2. The questionnaire and the statistical strategy
Among the 13 sections of the questionnaire, six are
examined in the present research. These sections make it
possible to get:
 Information on the project: sector, duration,
granted funds, respective contributions of the
major financial institutions.
 A global judgement of the coordinator on the
success of his project.
 The coordinator’s appreciation on statements
(items) that make reference to micro-dimensions
of project evaluation (see following section).
 Information on contextual events: suspension5 of
the country, turn-over of the stakeholders, etc.
 The coordinator’s opinions on how the stake-
holders judge the success of his project: the task
manager in the international development insti-
tution, his national supervisor, the steering
committee, his project team, the beneficiaries,
and the general populace.
 Socio-demographic information on the coordi-
nator’s age, sex, education, participation in
seminars or workshops, former experience in
project management, professional status, wages,
etc.
Information that refers to a subjective judgement was
rated on a scale from one to five (i.e. from strongly dis-
agree to strongly agree) or on a binary scale (0,1) when
it was a dichotomous answer without any subjectivity.
Statements referring to the overall project success and
to the elementary micro-dimensions of project eval-
uation are listed later. In these cases, coordinators
ranked their responses from one to five on all items.
On the first page of the questionnaire:
 My project is a success (SUCCESS)
Respondents were asked to respond to the following
statements on the reverse side of the first page. This was
in order to disassociate these answers from the earlier
statement:
 the beneficiaries are satisfied by the goods or
services generated (BENSATIS);
 the goods and services produced are by the pro-
ject conform to those described in the project
documents(GSCONF);
 the initially identified objectives were attained
(OBJECTIVES);
 the project operated in time (TIME);
 the project operated within budget (BUDGET);
 the project achieved a high national profile
(PROFILE);
 the project has a good reputation amongst the
principal donors (REPUTATION);
5
Multilateral development agencies suspend disbursements when
debt repayments are significantly overdue without just cause or when
the local political situation is beyond control.
 A. Diallo, D. Thuillier / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 19–31
 the project has a good chance to be extended with
additional funding (ADDFUND);
 the project had a visible impact on the bene-
ficiaries (IMPACT); and
 the project built institutional capacity within the
country (SUSTAIN).
Internal consistency and reliability tests were per-
formed by calculating alpha of Cronbach on the com-
plete sample and on random sub-samples. The results
were always higher than 0.84 which makes it possible to
complete the analysis. The statistical strategy is simple
and straightforward:
 Factor analysis with the earlier items (micro-
dimensions), in order to identify meaningful
latent variables or ‘‘constructs’’ which form
macro-dimensions (criteria). Then orthogonal
rotations are performed to get the clearest picture
of macro-dimensions coordinates.
 Nominal regression with project success as a
dependent variable and macro-dimensions (suc-
cess dimensions) as explanatory variables. This
to understand the coordinators’ hierarchy of
evaluation dimensions.
 Nominal regression between the stakeholders’
appreciation of the project success as perceived
by the coordinator as the dependant variable,
and macro-dimensions as dependant variables.
This is to understand the hierarchy upon which,
according to the project coordinator, each sta-
keholder built his appreciation of project success.
 Non parametric analysis between success and a
priori influential characteristics to unveil other
potentially significant meaningful relationships
between success or success dimensions and
independent variables included in the survey.
Statistical analysis of Likert scale data is not tractable
with classical multivariate regression owing to the vio-
lation of usual assumptions. Multiple discriminant ana-
lysis or multinomial logistic regression stand as usual
alternatives for such surveys [25]. In the research, we
chose multinomial logistic regression to test the sig-
nificance of the macro-dimensions versus the project
success as other researchers did for similar studies in
social sciences.6 Logistic regression does not require a
normally distributed dependent variable, linearity
between dependent and independents, homo-
scedasticity, independents to be intervals, etc. However
6
Likert scales was considered as a valuable tool to assess percep-
tions in project management [12–14]. However it was not possible to
identify empirical project management research analysing ordinal data
either with multiple discriminant analysis or multinomial logistic
regression. These techniques are common in business research,
marketing, psychology, or medical sciences.
25
logistic regression is sensitive to multicollinearity and
sample size (as maximum likelihood estimation implies
asymptotic normality). Reliability of our estimates may
be altered by the presence of correlation between eval-
uation dimensions and by the limited number of cases in
our sample for each combination of independents. Lack
of robustness may preclude any valid conclusion. In this
research we test robustness on random sub samples to
assess the stability of the macro-dimensions hierarchy.
The most significant results are discussed in the
following section.
4. Results of the empirical (statistical) analysis
4.1. Constructs or macro-dimensions
Each item corresponds to a micro-dimension. Each
micro-dimension is specific but some are derived from
the same latent variable or ‘‘construct’’, which can then
be considered as a macro-dimension of the evaluation
process. We will henceforth use the terms ‘‘construct’’
and ‘‘macro-dimension’’ interchangeably. Essentially,
constructs are latent variables and are thus not directly
measurable, but we can indirectly unveil their existence
by considering communal variation between item
scores. Items whose scores have a high proportion of
common variance, share the influence of a common
latent variable or construct. Factor analysis, which is a
tool of vector reduction, makes it possible to identify
and specify constructs that underlie answers to state-
ments. After orthogonal rotation, optimal statistical
factor analysis generates three macro-dimensions for
our database. The factor scores or co-ordinates on each
statement are shown in Table 1.
Co-ordinates lower than 0.5 after orthogonal rotation
were removed, in order to improve the visual emergence
of the three macro-dimensions, whose meaning is dis-
cussed in what follows:
Table 1
Co-ordinates of macro-dimensions on micro-dimensions
Micro-dimensions (items) Factors
1 2 3
BENSATIS 0.571
GS CONF 0.633
OBJECTIVES 0.569
TIME 0.729
BUDGET 0.851
PROFILE 0.730
REPUTATION 0.586
ADDFUND 0.688
IMPACT 0.738
SUSTAIN 0.847
n=82. Orthogonale rotation: VARIMAX.
26 A. Diallo, D. Thuillier / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 19–31
 Macro-dimension 1: PROFILE, ADDFUND,
GSCONF, REPUTATION
Three (out of four) micro-dimensions gather parti-
cular characteristics which belong to the international
development project environment. They relate to the
concept of the political value of the project itself and of
its management. A project, considered under a political
angle, is as valuable tool for governmental action as it is
for the professional career of the project manager. Pro-
jects that run effectively are often publicised by the
government for political purposes. This is beneficial for
the project manager as well as for the government. In
addition, it is generally understood that a project with a
high local profile and a good reputation amongst the
donors is in a position to eventually receive additional
funding for extension once the project’s initial phase
concludes. It is agreed that factor analysis does not
allow us to statistically infer that ADDFUND depends
on PROFILE and REPUTATION. Nevertheless the
grouping of these three micro-dimensions is significant.
The multilateral institution which funds the project,
may be viewed in some point as a client that the coor-
dinator intends to satisfy.
The macro-dimension explains 24% of the common
variance. We will label this macro-dimension PRO-
FILE, for the sake of simplicity.
 Macro-dimension 2: BUDGET, TIME,
OBJECTIVES
This is a group of micro-dimensions which corre-
spond to the usual constraints of project management
(time, cost) with a dimension related to the satisfaction
of the institution that funds the project (OBJECTIVES).
Indeed, even if the actors, such as the local authorities
and donors, agree on the finality of a project or pro-
gram, then the specific objectives of the project are often
set up and defined by the donors’ evaluation team once
the project appraisal is completed. These objectives
draw upon the overall aid framework of the multilateral
institutions and adhere to their policies. This is even if
national and local experts participate in the field mis-
sions and strive to raise local concerns. This macro-
dimension explains 23% of the common variance. It
confirms that the coordinator strives to comply with the
agenda that is set for the project leader and to satisfy
the multilateral institution. While the macro-dimension
refers to classical project management skills it is named
hereafter MANAGEMENT.
 Macro-dimension 3: SUSTAIN, IMPACT,
BENSATIS
This macro-dimension could have included OBJEC-
TIVES, since OBJECTIVES weighted it with a co-ordi-
nate under, but near to 0.5. Otherwise it is a cluster that
is very neat and delineates the scores of minor items,
OBJECTIVES excepted. These three components
measure the real results and the medium and long term
direct or indirect benefits. We will simply name the
macro-dimension IMPACT. It explains 20% of the
common variance.
Two macro-dimensions (on three) are objective and as
it could be expected, one refers to the management suc-
cess (macro-dimension 2) and the other to the success of
the project itself (macro-dimension 3). This is in accor-
dance with what the literature says for project manage-
ment at large. It is both interesting and reassuring to see
the factor analysis grouping the micro-dimensions in the
same manner as the conceptual analysis. The third
macro-dimension, PROFILE, captures a particular
behavior specific to the mechanics and to the distinctive
environment of international development projects. The
national coordinator in a developing country cannot
rely only on the fact that he is a competent and hard
working project manager to ensure a long and prosper-
ous professional career. The ‘‘survival’’ of the coordi-
nator as a coordinator, and thus as a personality that
enjoys the benefits of a high profile position (his wages
do not compare with those of his fellow civil servants in
the ministry, see Appendix) depends on one hand on his
relationship with the task manager of the multilateral
institution (its other ‘‘client’’) and on the other hand, on
his status as a local personality. A coordinator posi-
tively perceived within his environment can eventually
capitalise on the results of his project. The project can
be compared with a springboard; a rare opportunity
that the coordinator must carefully manage for the sake
of the public interest as well as for his professional and
personal interest.
However, the macro-dimensions documented earlier
may not weight equally the coordinator’s judgement on
his project success. This is precisely what we intend to
analyse next.
4.2. The coordinator’s hierarchy of macro-dimensions
We thus define the internal dimensions hierarchy on
which the coordinators’ judgement is built. The depen-
dant variable SUCCESS and the macro-dimensions
PROFILE, MANAGEMENT, and IMPACT needed
some re-coding either on (0,1) or (1,2,3). As different
binary re-codings of SUCCESS did not show robustness
owing to aggregation problems linked with the variable
distribution, we finally re-coded all variables on a (1,2,3)
scale which appeared more in accordance with the
implicit meaning of the coordinators’ answers. With
such a scale, a score value of 1 represents more or less a
project failure, 2 means that the project is a relative
success and 3 characterises a complete success. Each
macro-dimensions was re-coded using the non-
 A. Diallo, D. Thuillier / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 19–31
weighted7 mean of scores for each item (micro-
dimension) which defines the macro-dimensions as listed
in Table 1. The multinomial logistic regression is some-
what tricky when it comes to discussing results but
it gives a detailed understanding of the underlying
relationship between variables which is precisely what
we are looking for at this stage. As usual, the score 3
(i.e. for the dependant variable: the coordinator agrees
strongly that ‘‘the project is a success’’) acts as
the omitted score and thus acts as a reference in the
statistical analysis. Results are seen in Table 2.
Drawing on the earlier empirical results we may
ascertain that:
 Globally, only the macro-dimensions MAN-
AGEMENT and PROFILE significantly under-
lie the coordinators’ judgement. It is not possible
to say that the coordinators consider the
IMPACT, and therefore medium and long term
benefits when assessing project success.
 Going into more detailed analysis, MANAGE-
MENT and PROFILE explain the fact that the
coordinator will never judge his project as a
failure (SUCCESS=1) when he finds that project
performance on both these dimensions is good.
The contrary also holds true: when both dimen-
sions are poor, the project will never be seen a
complete SUCCESS. However, a poor perfor-
mance on MANAGEMENT is the only reason
that might significantly restrain the coordinator
from considering his project a complete SUC-
CESS, but it could be considered a complete
SUCCESS if MANAGEMENT is good but
project PROFILE is low. Again, the contrary
holds true. Finally, even if the project is con-
sidered a failure or a relative success, IMPACT is
never significantly taken into consideration.
We are pleased to see that the MANAGEMENT
dimension plays a prominent role when coordinators
Table 2
The coordinators hierarchy of macro-dimensions
SUCCESS
1 Global 2 for IMPACT but less obvious for the other
MANAGEMENT 0.004 0.000 0.002
PROFILE 0.003 0.002 0.104
IMPACT 0.193 0.267 0.130
n=82. Numbers show significance of the null hypothesis. This means
that there is a significant relationship (underlined) when numbers are
below 0.05.
7
Another statistical analysis was performed using weighted items
scores for each macro-dimension. Results did not show significant
changes when compared with those discussed hereafter.
27
are assessing project success. However, it may not be
easy to accept the idea that the central player is less
sensitive to the induced results (IMPACT) as he is to the
project PROFILE. Perhaps we should consider that
IMPACT is an abstract concept that is difficult to eval-
uate, especially when the project is in start-up mode (the
survey includes some ‘‘young’’ projects although not in
an unacceptable proportion). Information is not avail-
able until the end of project and sometimes not until
after it has closed. There are delays inherent in the
reception of information concerning IMPACT indica-
tors, particularly in education, health and other social
projects. However, we tested unsuccessfully IMPACT
for «young» and «mature» projects. As robustness of
the model may be questionable, random sub-samples
multinomial logit estimations with two third of the data
base were conducted. MANAGEMENT was tested sig-
nificant 10 times out of ten, PROFILE eight times, but
IMPACT was significant only two times out of ten
which validates the findings in Table 2.8 This confirms
that the criteria comes third when judging of the project
success. It seems that for coordinators managing high
PROFILE projects, IMPACT is therefore taken more
or less for granted.
4.3. The macro-dimensions factors of performance
Our initial intention was to empirically investigate
potential variations of the coordinators’ hierarchy of
dimensions with respect to characteristics like age, gen-
der, anglophone or francophone cultural influence or
even project sectors. This was unfortunately not possi-
ble as the modest size of the database precluded seg-
mentation. We could however conduct non parametric
correlations or non parametric tests between the macro-
dimensions and the earlier-mentioned variables. This
does not give us any information on hierarchy but
allows us to nevertheless statistically infer relationships,
if any, between variables and project performance. As a
result we were in a position to ascertain:
 Performance on MANAGEMENT and PRO-
FILE depends upon the project sector (P < 0.05)
and the same can be said for IMPACT, although
less significantly (P < 0.10). It is common sense
macro-dimensions.
 older coordinators show better MANAGE-
MENT (P < 0.05). It is arguable to infer that as
development projects follow precise implemen-
tation processes and procurement guidelines,
smooth management of such projects require
8
Multiple discriminant analysis came to an identical conclusion.
IMPACT was rejected for poor correlation with the discriminant
functions.
28 A. Diallo, D. Thuillier / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 19–31

some experience. As newly appointed project
coordinators often lack of project management
skills, time is required for the learning curve to
take effect. One can understand that an ‘‘old’’
coordinator who can ably handle multilateral
project management constraints may get more
autonomy and may be treated in a more laisser-
faire manner by his task manager and thus will
show timely, efficient delivery of outputs. It may
also come from cultural traits: age is well
respected in Africa and the decisions of older
coordinators are often not contested within the
project team.
 Having a national supervisor who is truly a
‘‘politician’’ improves the performance on
IMPACT. In the instance where the national
supervisor is more of a ‘‘technician’’, it improves
the MANAGEMENT performance. This con-
forms to assumptions but it is premature to infer
without testing with control variables, particu-
larly with sectors. Again, this was not possible
because of database constraints.
 When the multilateral agencies suspend dis-
bursements on the grounds of political or eco-
nomical matters, it significantly affects (P < 0.05)
the MANAGEMENT as everyone could expect.
 Projects whose coordinators attend more semi-
nars and intensive workshops in Africa show
significant MANAGEMENT improvements
(P < 0.05). However, only coordinators of high
PROFILE projects attend seminars or work-
shops in North America.
The data did not show any significant relationship
between achievement on the three macro-dimensions
and coordinators’ education, gender or the fact that the
country was a former French or British colony. In these
cases though, a lack of significance is as good a result as
is significance itself.
4.4. The stakeholders’ hierarchy of evaluation
macro-dimensions
Everyone is driven by his own perception of his
environment. It is also true for the project coordinator
who manages in accordance with the way he perceives
the stakeholders’ reactions as the project progresses. It
was possible to identify the macro-dimensions on
which the coordinator makes up his mind about pro-
ject success. Once we know how the coordinator per-
ceives each stakeholder’s opinion about his project, it is
straightforward to identify how the coordinator thinks
the stakeholders are ranking the same macro-dimen-
sions. Remember the coordinator was alone when
completing the questionnaire. As we only have the
opinions of the coordinators, we must assume that the
stakeholders build their judgements with the same
macro-dimensions used by the coordinators. This
seems highly probable. Even if stakeholders may use
others, it is almost certain that these three macro-
dimensions are taken into consideration, although not
with the same hierarchy demonstrated by the coordi-
nators (see the literature review Section 2). It is pre-
cisely this last point that we want to investigate further
and empirically validate.
The statistical strategy is the same as outlined Section
4.2. Stakeholder opinions were also re-coded with a
(1,2,3) scale and were subjected to nominal regression.
As usual, the score 3 (i.e. ‘‘the stakeholder strongly
agrees that the project is a success’’) is the reference sit-
uation. Results are shown in Table 3.
Only taking into consideration statistical significance
below the 0.05 level, we may ascertain that:
 As discussed earlier, (see Section 4.2) the coor-
dinator is sensitive to the MANAGEMENT and
to the PROFILE of his project when it comes to
assessing its success. However IMPACT is never
a valuable macro-dimension for evaluation.

Table 3
Stakeholders hierarchy of macro-dimensions

SUCCESS

MANAGEMENT PROFILE IMPACT

1 Global 2 1 Global 2 1 Global 2

Coordinator (82) 0.004 0.000 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.104 0.193 0.267 0.130
Task manager (82) 0.115 0.226 0.676 0.001 0.000 0.060 0.184 0.034 0.018
Supervisor(82) 0.007 0.014 0.060 0.022 0.037 0.202 0.025 0.006 0.006
Steering Committee (80) 0.116 0.158 0.072 0.007 0.011 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.002
Project Team (82) 0.003 0.002 0.005 0.203 0.431 0.374 0.001 0.001 0.006
Beneficiares (80) 0.045 0.110 0.193 0.739 0.916 0.922 0.000 0.000 0.001
Population (82) 0.026 0.013 0.012 0.865 0.030 0.158 0.000 0.000 0.001

(n): number of respondents excluding missing values. Numbers show significance of the null hypothesis. This means that there is a significant
relationship (underlined) when numbers are below 0.05.
 A. Diallo, D. Thuillier / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 19–31
 The task manager in the multilateral develop-
ment agency is sensitive to PROFILE and
IMPACT but the data was not able to confirm
that he pays attention to the project MAN-
AGEMENT. As a result, statistical analysis
shows that there are differences between the two
prominent stakeholders as the coordinators
appear to place preference on short-term con-
siderations (MANAGEMENT–PROFILE)
when task managers show more of a long-term
perspective (PROFILE–IMPACT). Here it
should be noted however that they both value
PROFILE and that GSCONF is included in
PROFILE (see Table 1). The task manager is
therefore not indifferent to the quality of the
project outputs. Factor analysis is a valuable tool
but it also has drawbacks: as separation of fac-
tors is not a clear cut one, caution is required in
the analysis before jumping to premature con-
clusions.
 The national supervisor, often a department
director or even the minister himself appears to
value the three macro-dimensions with slightly
the same degree of significance. This conforms
with what could be anticipated
 The steering committee raises concerns only on
PROFILE and IMPACT. The committee does
not meet at steady intervals and its numerous
members who are often representatives of gov-
ernment institutions turn over frequently. The
committee is not in a position to skilfully address
project management problems. In brief, the
steering committee looks more like a burden than
an effective consulting support to the project
coordinator.
 The project team values MANAGEMENT and
IMPACT. It is a reassuring finding. Improve-
ment of project efficiency should mean some
increase in support to the project team as a whole
or at least to its most effective members (short
but intensive project management workshops,
procurement seminars, etc.)
 The beneficiaries’ concerns reside only in project
IMPACT, which again looks like common sense.
Management is not a ongoing concern for ben-
eficiaries as appropriate information does not
reach them anyway. Beneficiaries do not care for
PROFILE as it is only the fulfilment of their
essential needs that matters to them.
 The general populace get information through
the newspapers, the radio or the television. It is a
logical finding that the public are sensitive to
PROFILE. Like the beneficiaries, the public at
large is unable to assess MANAGEMENT
quality, but the project IMPACT matters as
anticipated.
29
From all the statistical analysis emerge only two
unexpected results. As previously discussed, it appears
contradictory that project coordinators do not care sig-
nificantly for project IMPACT. In addition, the fact
that other stakeholders place preference on IMPACT as
a key dimension for evaluation of project success shows
that even if the coordinators find it rather difficult to
assess project IMPACT (a possible explanation see
Section 4.2), it does not preclude them to implicitly
consider IMPACT as an unavoidable evaluation criteria
for other stakeholders. If it is a difficult task for the
central player to assess IMPACT, then it will be next to
impossible for more peripheral actors to do so. Since all
stakeholders but the coordinator appreciate IMPACT
as it should be, we face a specific result that requires
further research to be confirmed or better understood.
The lack of strong significance of MANAGEMENT for
the task manager brings us to question either the coor-
dinators’ thinking, which looks strange based on this
sole preoccupation, or to see this result as a unique
sample feature which could disappear within a much
larger database. Unfortunately the present size of the
data-base does not allow us to settle the question.
5. Conclusion
The analysis of the project coordinators perceptions
confirms that sensible differences exist on how stake-
holders value evaluation dimensions. This is a vali-
dation of conceptual standard project evaluation
principles and methods as exposed in professional and
scientific project management literature. To put it
briefly, the study confirms that each stakeholder asses-
ses project success on the basis of evaluation dimensions
that fit within his own agenda or within the interests of
the group he represents. It is worthy to note that the
research, which shows some other interesting empirical
results, was conducted with and through the sole per-
ception of the coordinators. We consider this to be the
main and unique engine of the project’s future path and
success. Obviously, validity of the empirical findings
depends on the sincerity of coordinators’ answers to the
proposed statements of the questionnaire and is subject
to limitations as discussed Section 3.1. However, ques-
tionnaires were received for more than 90 projects fairly
well distributed with respect to countries, sectors and
maturity. We think the results deserve generalisation
and may be extended to how the community of project
coordinators of international development projects in
Africa south of the Sahara ranks success dimensions
and how they perceive the evaluation dimensions hier-
archy of each project stakeholders.
Perceptions may sometimes be incorrect representa-
tions of reality but as we discussed earlier, perceptions
are the coordinator’s sole possession and are the very
30 A. Diallo, D. Thuillier / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 19–31

basis upon which he makes his decisions. We are left
with the paradox that perception may be the rational
that drives the project path.
The statistical analysis was able to confirm well-
accepted principles of project evaluation. It was also
possible to address other topics more directly linked to
the particular type of projects under investigation.
Relationships between some variables and project suc-
cess dimensions were analysed. We did not however
directly address internal project success factors like
project team interrelations or communication quality
between the project coordinator and the more influen-
tial stakeholders. Such research is under implemen-
tation. It is our hope that the future empirical results on
these interesting and already widely debated questions
will eventually complement the findings presented
here.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the company
SETYM International Inc. (Montreal, Quebec, Canada)
for offering the use of its database of project managers,
coordinators and directors of projects financed by
international financing institutions in Africa.

Appendix. Characteristics of projects and project coordinators

Project sectors: (n=89)
% % %
Education 12.4 Rural Development 19.1 Reform & Governance 11.2
Energy 3.4 Urban Development 3.4 Health, Pop. and Nutr. 5.6
Environment 9.0 Public Works 6.7 Comm. and Telecom 2.2
Mines 2.2 Social Dev. 9.0 Agetipe9 15.7

Donors contributions: (n=83), (Millions of US $)

TOTAL WORLD AFDB EU UNDP OTHERS GOVT.
BANK
n 86 61 23 17 23 36 63
Mean 36.08 25.94 9.50 9.78 1.82 15.60 7.75
Median 16.70 19.00 2.00 2.50 0.30 5.50 2.00
Mode 5.00 4.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00
Min. 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Max. 600.00 120.00 60.00 90.00 15.00 250.00 100.00

Project coordinators:
Gender (n=91): Male: 89% Female: 11%
Country (n=92) : Anglo: 35% Franco: 65%
Education (n=91) : Undergraduate: 13% Graduate: 87%
Prof. status (n=91): Civil servant: 33% Civil serv. seconded: 27%
Contractual: 34% Other : 6%

Salary and benefits: (n=89)

(equivalent US $) <2 500 2500–5000 5000–7500 7500–10 000 > 10 000
% 26.1 17.4 10.9 8.7 33.7

9
Agence d’ Exécution des Travaux d’ Intérêt Public.

References
[1] Jack W. Social Investment Funds: An organisational approach to
improve development assistance. The World Bank Research
Observer 2001;16(1):109–24.
[2] Youker R. Managing international development project : lessons
learned. Project Management Journal 1999;30(2):6–7.
[3] Freeman M, Beale P. Measuring project success. Project Man-
agement Journal 1992;23(1):8–17.
[4] Pinto JK, Slevin DP. Project success: definitions and measure-
ment techniques. Project Management Journal 1988;19(1):67–72.
[5] Pinto JK, Slevin DP. Critical success factors across the project
life cycle. Project Management Journal 1988;19(3):67–74.
[6] Shenar AJ, Levy O, Dvir D. Mapping the dimensions of project
success. Project Management Journal 1997;28(2):5–13.
[7] Lim CS, Zain MM. Criteria of project success: an explanatory re-
examination. International Journal of Project Management 1999;
17(4):243–8.
[8] Baccarini D. The logical framework method for defining project
success. Project Management Journal 1999;30(4):25–32.
[9] Stukenbruck L. Who determines project success? PMI Annual
Symposium. Montréal, 1986;85-93.
[10] Widemann RM. How to motivate stakeholders to work together.
In: Cleland DI, editor. Field guide to project management. New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1998. p. 212–26.
[11] Baker BN, Murphy DC, Fisher D. Factors affecting project
success. In: Cleland DI, King WR, editors. Project Management
 A. Diallo, D. Thuillier / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 19–31
Handbook. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1988. p. 902–
19.
[12] Andersen ES, Dyrhaug QX, Jessen SA. Evaluation of chinese
projects and comparison with norwegian projects. International
Journal of Project Management 2002;20(8):601–9.
[13] White D, Fortune J. Current practice in project management: an
empirical study. International Journal of Project Management
2002;20(1):1–11.
[14] Dvir D, Raz T, Shenhar AJ. An empirical analysis of the rela-
tionship between project planning and project success. Interna-
tional Journal of Project Management 2003;21:89–95.
[15] Jodelet D. Représentation sociale: phénomènes, concept et théo-
rie. In: Paquet-Sévigny Th. editor. Communication et développe-
ment international. Presses de l’Université du Québec; 1996. pp.
357–78.
[16] Ravault RJ. Développement durable, communication et récep-
tion active. In: Paquet-Sévigny Th. editor. Communication et
développement international. Presses de l’Université du Québec;
1996. pp. 59–79.
[17] Au AKM, Tse ACB. Marketing ethics and behavioural predis-
positions of chinese managers of SMEs in Hong Kong. Journal
of Small Business Management 2001;39(3):272–8.
[18] Bellizi AJ, Hasty RW. Supervising unethical sales force beha-
31
viour: do men and women managers discipline men and women
subordinates uniformly. Journal of Business Ethics 2002;40(2):
155–66.
[19] Daniel E, Wilson H, Myers A. Adoption of e-commerce by SMEs
in the UK. International Small Business Journal 2002;20(3):253–
70.
[20] Cupach WR, Carson JM. The influence of compensation on
product recommendations made by insurance agents. Journal of
Business Ethics 2002;40(2):167–76.
[21] Valentine S, Barnett T. Ethic codes and sales’ professionals per-
ceptions of their organisations social values. Journal of Business
Ethics 2002;40(3):191–201.
[22] Crowne DP, Marlowe D. A new scale of social desirability inde-
pendent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology
1960;24:349–54.
[23] Paulhus DL. Two-component model of socially desirable
responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1984;
49:598–609.
[24] Zerbe WJ, Paulhus LD. Socially desirable responding in organi-
sational behaviour: a reconception. The Academy of Manage-
ment Review 1987;12(2):250–64.
[25] Hair JK, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. Multivariate
data analysis. 5th ed. Toronto: Prentice-Hall; 1998.