1- Results-Based Management - Friend or Foe.pdf

8/20/2019 1- Results-Based Management - Friend or Foe.pdf

1/8

Oxfam GB

Results-Based Management: Friend or Foe?Author(s): Michael J. Hatton and Kent SchroederReviewed work(s):Source: Development in Practice, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Jun., 2007), pp. 426-432Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of Oxfam GBStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25548228 .

Accessed: 31/07/2012 06:27

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and Oxfam GB are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Development in Practice.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancishttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ogbhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25548228?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25548228?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ogbhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis


2/8

Development

in

Practice,

Volume

17,

Number

3,

June 2007

|\

Ta?VLaJ?rouP

Results-based

management:

friend

or

foe?

Michael

J. Hatton

and

Kent

Schroeder

Results-based

management

(RBM)

is

well entrenched

as

a

management

tool

for

international

development

practice.

Yet

after

a

decade

of

its

use,

many

development

practitioners

view

RBM in

a

negative

light, considering

it

to

be

a

donor

requirement

that diverts

time,

energy,

and

resources

away

from actually

doing development

work. This article

provides

some

broad

reflections

on

RBM

from

a

distinctive

vantage

point:

the

perspective

of

the

project

(or

programme)

evaluator. The article

reflects

on

challenges

associated with

RBM

and draws

from

these

reflections

a

number

of suggested strategies

to

improve

its

use.

It concludes that

development

practitioners

need

to

be

more

aggressive

in

implementing

RBM.

Key Words:

Aid;

Methods

Results-based

management

in

development

Over the

past

decade,

results-based

management

(RBM)

has become well entrenched

as a

man

agement

tool

for

development.

It

is

a

fact

of life

for

many

of

us

working

in this field. Since

the

mid-1990s, RBM has focused thework of numerous bilateral and multilateral agencies on

defining,

managing,

and

measuring

results.

Inputs,

outputs,

outcomes,

and

impacts

have

become

a

familiar

refrain.Yet discussions

with

colleagues

regularly

take

on

a

negative

tone

when

the

topic

of

RBM arises.

Often,

and

only

half-jokingly,

RBM is

referred

to

as

part

of

the

problem,

a

requirement

that

consumes

time,

energy,

and

resources

and

obstructs

the

actual

doing

of

development

work.

In the words

of

one

colleague:

77/

just

bide

my

time

until

the

next

management

fad

comes

along .

While

this is

not

a

firm

position

taken

by

all

players

or

at

all

levels

in

development

work,

it is

a

view

not

infrequently

adopted

-

in

particular

by

many

of those

directly

involved

in

project

implementation.

Donors and

at

least

some

international

implementing

agencies

tend

to

be

more

supportive

of

RBM

as a

management

and evaluation

tool.

Broadly

speaking,

local

govern

ments

and

beneficiaries

are

less

enthusiastic.

The

varying

opinions

with

respect

to

RBM

clearly

imply

the

need

for

increased

efforts

to

explore

its

effectiveness

as a

development

tool.

A

considerable

amount

has been

written

about

the

use

of RBM

by

development agencies

to

date.

Much of it

is

descriptive

(see,

for

example,

Cummings

1997)

or

it

reviews

themedium-term

experience

with

RBM from the

426

ISSN

0961-4524

Print/ISSN

1364-9213 Online 030426-07

?

2007

Oxfam

GB

DOT

10.1080/09614520701337160 Routledge Publishing


3/8

Results-based

management:

friend

or

foe?

perspective

of donor

agencies

(see,

for

example, Binnendijk

2000;

Office ofthe Auditor General

of

Canada

2000).

This is

not

surprising, given

the

relatively

short

time since RBM

came

into

general

use,

compared

with the

long-term

results

that

it

intends

to

generate.

However,

as

some

development agencies

have

been

using

RBM

for

ten

or

more

years,

it

is

an

appropriate

time

to

reflect

more

deeply

on RBM as a

development

tool. This article

provides

some broad

reflections

on

RBM

from

a

distinctive

vantage

point:

the

perspective

of

the

project

(or

programme)

evaluator.

The article reflects

on

RBM

challenges

and seeks

to

draw from these

reflections

some

insights

for

improving

the

use

of

RBM

to

manage

for results.

Why

RBM?

Where

did

results-based

management

come

from,

and

why

is it

so

widespread?

RBM

has

its

roots

in the

wave

of public-sector reform that sweptmany of theOECD countries in the

early

1990s.

This

reform,

often

referred

to

as

New

Public

Management

(NPM),

was

driven

by

demands for

more

efficient and

responsive

services,

concerns

about

spiralling

budget

defi

cits,

the

perceived

need for increased

accountability,

and citizens

general

discontent

with

their

governments.

New Public

Management

offered

a

response.

It

injected

market

strategies

into

public

management,

promoted

a

client-focused

orientation

to

services,

decentralised

services

where

appropriate,

and

emphasised

accountability

based

on

the

effectiveness

and

relevance of

results.

Taken

in

total,

the

scope

and breadth of the

reforms

were

so

broad

that

the OECD claimed thatNPM

represented

a

paradigm

shift in

public

management

(OECD

1995:

81).

One aspect of these reformswas the incorporation of results-basedmanagement, sometimes

called

performance

management,

as a

management

strategy.

This

strategy

focuses

on

the

achievement of

results.

In

particular,

RBM

emphasises

the

importance

of

defining expected

resultswith the

involvement of

key

stakeholders,

assessing

the

risks that

may

impede expected

results,

monitoring

programmes

designed

to

achieve

these

results

through

the

use

of

appropriate

indicators,

reporting

on

performance

in

achieving

results,

and

acting

on

performance

infor

mation. A

results chain is

at

the

core

of

this

process:

human and

financial

resources

(inputs)

generate

activities that

produce

results in

the

short

term

(outputs);

in

the

medium,

end-of-project,

term

(outcomes);

and

in

the

long

term

(impacts).

At its

heart,

RBM

therefore

guides

all

management

activities towards

the

ultimate

achievement of

defined results. This

rep

resents a fundamental re-orientation

away

from

previous

management

approaches

that were

dominated

by

an

emphasis

on

inputs

and

activities,

the

assumption

being

that results

would

follow

if

the

inputs

and activities

were

appropriately

robust.

These

reforms

extended

to

the

bilateral

development

programmes

of

OECD

countries.

Results-based

management

became the

management

strategy

of

choice for

agencies

such

as

CIDA in

Canada,

DFID in

the

UK,

USAID in

the

USA,

AusAID in

Australia,

and

Danida in

Denmark.

Multilateral

organisations,

including

the

World

Bank

and

a

variety

of

UN

agencies,

also

incorporated

RBM

as

a

management

strategy.

RBM

further

trickled

down

to

the

management

approaches

of

non-government

organisations (NGOs),

private

companies,

and

higher-education

institutions

acting

as

the

implementing agencies

for

bilateral and

multilateral

development organisations.

Given this

widespread

use,

RBM

affects

most

of

us

involved

in

development

work in

some

manner.

Some

embrace

it,

some

deride

it,

and

some

just try

to

ignore

it.

Complicating

things

further,

the

power

relationship

among

the

key

players

-

donors,

recipients,

implementers,

and

so

on

-

is

clearly

asymmetrical.

In this

mixed

context,

the

key question

remains:

what

does

our

actual

experience

tell

us

about

RBM?

Development

in

Practice,

Volume

17,

Number

3,

June

2007

427


4/8

Michael

J. Hatton and

Kent

Schroeder

RBM

challenges:

reflections from

evaluation

practice

The

work

of

monitoring

and evaluation

typically

involves

critically

assessing

the

process

and

results of

a

project

or

programme

and

offering

a

written

analysis.

This

gives

the evaluator

a

unique perspective on the gaps and successes in programme management. It also provides

the

evaluator with

a

potentially

key

role in

achieving

project

results

by contributing

to

learning,

decision

making,

and

accountability.

So what

can

the

view from

the evaluator s

perch

tell

us

about the

challenges

associated

with the

use

of

results-based

management?

Our

experience

suggests

that

the

following challenges

are common.

Diverse

perspectives

on

RBM

It

is

not

easy

to

find

two

people

who

will

describe

RBM

in

the

same

way.

Even

today,

after

a

decade

or more

of

its

use,

the

emphasis,

importance,

value,

and action

taken with

respect

to

the

employment

of RBM

vary

tremendously,

depending

on the

players.

Individuals,

different

donors,

different

donor

managers,

different

recipients,

and different

recipient

countries

bring

different

perspectives

to

what RBM

means,

how it is

described,

how it is

employed,

how it

should be

employed,

and its value. And all this

is

shifting,

though

much

more

slowly

than

has been

the

case

in

the

past.

It is

easy

to

imagine

the confusion and frustration f

an

executing

agency

thatworks with

one

donor for

which RBM is

the

focus,

and with another donor for

which

RBM is

an

afterthought.

Or consider

working

with

two

managers

from

the

same

donor,

and

finding

that

the first directs

the

executing

agency

to

use

RBM

as

the

cornerstone

in

management

and

reporting,

and

the second

seems

not to

grasp

its value.

There is

much

greater convergence

with

respect

to

the

opinions

about

and commitment

to

RBM

today

than

in the

past,

and this

trend

will continue

to

grow.

But

differences

of

opinion, practice,

and

under

standing

remain

significant.

Lack

of

understanding

of

RBM

as a

results-focused

approach

In addition

to

diverse

perspectives

on

RBM,

it is

striking

how

often within

implementing

agencies

there

is

a

failure

to

understand

RBM

as

a

results-focused

strategy.

For

many

projects

the

operational challenges

are

such

that

outputs

and

outcomes

are

simply

not

on

the radar

screen.

Evaluation

does

not

get

past

such elements

as

the

qualifications

and

capacity

of the

fieldmanager or projectmanager, and the logistics offlowing financial orHR capacity, or phys

ically reaching

the

beneficiaries,

including developing

relationships

with

them.

Not

surpris

ingly, reporting

on

outputs

and

outcomes is

an area

of weakness.

Many

project

reporters

prefer

to

work

on

page

after

page

of activities.

It is

not

uncommon

for

a

60-page

report

to

have

only

three

pages

that describe

results

past

the

activity

stage.

It is

also

not

uncommon

for

reports

in the first

two to

three

years

of

a

project

to

emphasise

that

it is

too

early

for

results,

including

at

the

output

level.

Breaking

with

the

past

approach

of

managing

for

inputs

and

activities

instead

of

for results

is

a

key

challenge

that

is still

poorly

understood

by

some.

Inclusion of thedeveloping-country partner inRBM planning and reporting

RBM

cannot

be

used

effectively

unless

the

developing-country

partner

also understands

the

paradigm,

is

well

trained

in

it,

and

has made

an

explicit

commitment

to

the

approach.

The

best

RBM

reporting

flows

from

reports

thathave

included

active

participation

by

the

develop

ing-country

partner.

RBM

at

a

mid-level of effective

application,

or

higher,

must

come

from

a

partnership.

That

partnership

will

not

develop

unless the

developing-country

partner

is

a

full

428

Development

in

Practice,

Volume

17,

Number

3,

June

2007


5/8

Results-based

management:

friend

or

foe?

participant

in

both

planning

and

reporting.

This

is

perhaps

best

explained

by

an

example.

It

is

interesting

to

ask

developing-country

partners

for

their

assessment

of the

annual

work

plan.

If

its

development

was a

shared

task,

they

will

speak

of it

as

our

plan .

Otherwise,

it

is

the

plan .

Our

plan

is

typically

described

in

detail

with

glowing

pride.

The

plan

is

most

often

described

in a

cursory

fashion,

with less

knowledge

about the detail and littlecommitment to the core.

Our

plan

comes

with

a

defence

of how

the

resources

are

allocated.

The

plan

is described

with

little

or no

information

on

the

costs

of

various

elements

and

the

options

that

have been

considered.

If our

plan

includes

RBM,

the

partner

will

probably

be

committed

to

it.That

is

an

essential

step.

Effective

RBM

practice

does

not

happen

without

the

partner.

And

when it

does

happen

with

the

partner,

much

else

falls into

place.

Yet commitment

to

full

inclusion

of

the

developing-country

partner

inRBM

planning

and

reporting

is

often

weak.

In

some

cases

this

is due

to

a

lack

of

understanding

of

RBM

within

the

executing

agency.

Confusion

at

this level

quickly

translates

into

confusion and

lack of

inter

est

in the

developing-country partner.

In other

cases,

RBM

is

perceived by implementing

agencies

as

a

management

practice

from

the

developed

world,

not to

be

imposed

on

partners.

RBM

monitoring

and

reporting

therefore remain

the sole domain

of

the

implementing

agency.

Further,

it

may

also

be that

different

results

are

valued

differently

by

different

players.

When the local

NGO s

needs

or

expectations

differ from

the

donor s,

the

implementing

agency

is left

to

negotiate

a

solution and

report

accordingly.

In the

end,

a

management

strategy

involving

only

half of

a

partnership

will

not

generate

relevant

and sustainable

results.

Identifying

realistic

results

and

unexpected

results

Results that re realistically achievable may not always be at thefront fmanagers minds. This is

especially

the

case

when

you

ask

people

what

can

be

achieved

when

they

are

in

the

process

of

bidding

on a

project

or

trying

to

sell

an

unsolicited

proposal.

Results identified

at

this

stage

are

not

necessarily ramped

back

to

the real

world

as

the

project

unfolds.

But if the identified nd

tar

geted

results

are

not

realistic,

then

the

project

cannot

be

managed

for

successful

results.

When

a

donor

requires

targeted

results

to

be

part

of

a

proposal,

it is

important

for those

results

to

be eval

uated,

at

least

in

part,

by

how achievable

they

are,

not

simply

on

how ambitious

they

are.

Executing agencies

and their

implementing

partners

on

the

ground

also

regularly ignore

the

identification

of

unexpected

results. The

need

to

define

expected

outputs,

outcomes,

and

impacts

at

the

planning

stage

can

lock the focus of those

implementing

a

project

into

achieving

those specific results.Unexpected results,which may be very significant,end up being ignored

or

downplayed

if

they

do

not

neatly

fit

into

the

original

results framework.

Meaningful

stakeholder

participation

Stakeholder

participation

is

a core

element of RBM. You

cannot

effectively

manage

for results if

any

of the

key

stakeholders

-

beneficiaries,

development

partners,

and

donor

agencies

-

do

not

consider

the

expected

results

to

be

relevant.

Stakeholder

participation

must

be

meaningful.

This

is

not

easy,

and this element alone

is

interpreted

in

many

different

ways,

often

so

subjective

that

making

realistic

assessments

can

be

very

challenging.

Some

project

documentation

speaks

about

equal

partnerships

or

equal

participation.

These are

impossible

tomeasure. Even the

word

meaningful

is

open

to

challenge

and

confusion

at

the best of

times.

If

we were

to

ask all

development

stakeholders,

confidentially,

if

their

participation

in

the

allocation

of

project

expen

ditures

had

been

satisfactory

or

better,

positive replies

would

probably

not

reach 75

per

cent.

Grappling

with

the

challenges

of

defining,

implementing,

and

measuring meaningful

stakeholder

participation

is vital

to

RBM,

but it is

also

one

of

the

hardest

things

to

operationalise

effectively.

Development

in

Practice,

Volume

17,

Number

3,

June

2007 429


6/8

Michael J. Hatton and Kent Schroeder

Appropriate

and effective indicators

Appropriate

and effective indicators

are

critical

for

measuring

success

and

feeding

project

learning.

Yet constraints

on

time

and

resources

often lead

to

the selection of

simplified,

easily gathered quantitative indicators thatdo notmeasure results as deeply as they could,

especially

at

the

outcome

level. For

example,

the

mainstreaming

of

gender

equality

has

made the inclusion

of

gender

issues

and

accompanying

indicators

mandatory

in

many

projects.

It

is

common

for

projects

to

select indicators that

measure

nothing

more

than the

percentage

of

project

staff

nd

participants

who

are women.

While

this

is

important,

does it

really

measure

change

in

gender

relations

or

power

imbalances

in

any

meaningful

sense?

Simplified

indicators

make

it

much

more

difficult

to

measure

meaningful relationships

between

inputs

and results.

Managing

risks

All

project

partnersneed tobe able to take informed and timelyaction tomanage risks. Projects

must

be

nimble and

flexible

enough

to

adapt

to

changing

conditions

over

the duration of their

life. Are the

executing

agency,

the

partner

or

partners,

and the donor

agency

entrepreneurial

enough

to

make

changes

in

project design

and

capacity

as

needs

and

the

environment

change

over

a

multi-year

period?

If

not,

RBM risks

being

thwarted,

leading

to

results that

are

inap

propriate,

irrelevant,

or

both.

This should

not

be

confused with

manipulating

project

ends

to

meet

the

capacity

or

interests

of

the

executing

agency

or

beneficiary.

Limited focus

on

evaluation

In

many

cases

there is

a

limited focus

on

external

evaluation

within

project

and

programme

activity, despite

the critical

role of evaluation

in

measuring

results and

generating

learning.

Some

projects

and

programmes

are

evaluated

annually,

but

many

others

are

not.

An

end-of

project

evaluation

has

no

influence

on

project

or

programme

delivery.

An external evaluation

at

the 60

per

cent

point

of

a

project

is

also

hard-pressed

to

make

a

mark.

Further,

there is often

a

chal

lenge

in

maintaining

consistency

in evaluation.

For

example,

a

five-year

project

or

programme

could

have three

different

donor-agency project

officers and

two

different

monitors

over

that

period.

Maintaining

evaluation

consistency

in such

a

context

is

a

considerable

challenge.

Performance

incentives

and

consequences

Does

an

executing

agency

that

reports

poorly,

with little

apparent

commitment

to

or

knowledge

of

RBM,

suffer

significant

consequences?

Often

the

results

of

not

being

committed

to

RBM

are

not

disastrous

enough

to

modify

behaviour

in

advance,

and

maybe

not

even

so

problematic

as

to

affect

behaviour

significantly

after the

fact.

Similarly,

are

projects

rewarded

appropriately

for

results

that

have

been

defined,

achieved,

and

reported

through

the

participation

of

all

stake

holders?

Without

real

incentives

for

achieving

results

or

consequences

for

poor

reporting

and

management,

the

potential

of

a

results-focused

strategy

is

greatly

diminished.

Opportunities

for

learning

One

of the

key

roles

ofRBM

reporting

s

to

provide

information

hat

an

be

acted

upon.

Managing

performance

requires

ongoing

learning.

Yet

the connection

between

data collection

and

reporting

on

the

one

hand,

and the

incorporation

of

learning

arising

from

these

data

on

the

other,

is

often

not

made.

The demands

of

day-to-day

operations

frequently

rob

organisations

of time

to

reflect

on

430

Development

in

Practice,

Volume

17,

Number

3,

June 2007


7/8

Results-based

management:

friend

or

foe?

information

gathered

through

monitoring

and

evaluation,

to

draw lessons

from

these

reflections,

and

to

incorporate

this

learning

into

project

management.

The

result

is lost

opportunities.

The

best

projects

incorporate

learning

throughout

their

lifespan,

leading

to

effective,

efficient,

nd

rel

evant

results

for beneficiaries.

Many

projects

simply

cannot

find the time

to

do this.

Conclusion:

furthering

uccess

The

challenges

outlined above illustrate that

RBM

can

indeed

be

complex.

It has

not

been

as

easy

to

understand and

implement

as

was

first

expected.

In

fact,

it is

very

tough

to

plan,

analyse,

evaluate,

and

write

effectively

with

an

RBM

focus.

But

isRBM the

enemy

that

detracts

from

development

work,

as some

might suggest?

Is

it

a

faddish

management strategy

simply

to

be

tolerated

while

it lasts?

Despite

the

challenges,

our

experience

would

suggest

that

RBM,

used

effectively, provides

a

framework that

guides

the

delivery

of real results that

improve

the lives of thosemost directly affectedby development initiatives. It is in fact a verypowerful

tool. The

agencies, organisations,

and

corporations

that

embrace RBM

typically produce

strong

results. We

not

only

need

to

stay

the

course

with

RBM,

we

need

to

become

more

aggressive.

Being

more

aggressive,

however,

requires addressing

the

challenges.

There

are some

key

areas

of focus

thatwould

greatly

improve

RBM

within

our

development

projects.

We

need

to

strive

for

the

following:

To

oblige

executing agencies

of

all

types

to

report

effectively

through

an

RBM

framework

that includes

identifying

realistic results and

appropriate

indicators

at

the

risk

of

losing

the

project

if they ail

to

comply.

To

compel executing agencies

to

include

developing-country partners

in all

facets

of

project

development

and

implementation,

including reporting

for

results,

at

the

risk

of

losing

the

project.

To

engage

all

partners

in

mutually defining

the

depth

and

breadth

of

participation,

and how

this

will be

measured.

To

ensure

that

all

reporting

includes both intended

and

unintended

results,

both

positive

and

negative.

To

increase

the evaluation

level

of

most

projects,

and

specifically

undertake

more

post

impact

studies

to

inform

longer-term

project

development.

To

write

learning

activities

directly

into

project

work

plans

that

explicitly

put

aside time

for

project personnel to analyse, reflect on, and incorporate the lessons learned fromRBM

reporting.

To

provide

greater

incentives

and

rewards

to

projects

for

achieving

results,

including

revised

results that arise

from the

successful

management

of

risks

during

the life

of

the

project.

To

place

greater

emphasis

on

evaluating

executing

agencies

based

on

results,

not

just

on

activities.

Results-based

management

is

an

important

tool for

development

work.

Over the

past

decade

ithas

proved

to

be

both

successful

and

challenging.

But

a

decade of

use

does

not

mean

that

we

can

afford

to

become

complacent

in

our

implementation

of

RBM. We

need

to

redouble

our

efforts

tomeet

the

challenges

of

RBM

head-on

and

adopt

its

blueprint

for

success.

References

Binnendijk,

Annette

(2000)

Results-based

Management

in the

Development

Cooperation

Agencies:

A

Review of

Experience.

Background

Report ,

Paris:

DAC

Working

Party

on

Aid

Evaluation,

available

at

www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/l/1886527.pdf

(retrieved

1

February

2006).

Development

in

Practice,

Volume

17,

Number

3,

June 2007

431


8/8

Michael

J.

Hatton

and

Kent

Schroeder

Cummings,

Harry

(1997)

Logic

models,

logical

frameworks and results-based

management:

contrasts

and

comparisons ,

Canadian

Journal

of

Development

Studies

28(Special

Issue):

587-96.

OECD

(1995)

Governance in Transition:

Public

Management Reforms

inOECD

Countries.

Paris:

OECD.

Office

of

the Auditor General of

Canada

(2000)

Implementing

Results-based

Management:

Lessons

from the Literature , available at www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/other.nsf/html/OOrbm_e.html (retrieved

29

January

006).

The

authors

Michael

J.

Hatton

is

Vice President Academic

at

the

Humber Institute of

Technology

and

Advanced

Learning.

He has 15

years

experience

as

a

project

director,

monitor,

and evaluator

for

international devel

opment

programmes

in

Africa and Asia. In

addition,

he

has

provided

technical assistance

at

the

project

level in the

areas

of

teacher

education,

management

training,

and

strategic planning.

Contact

details:

Humber

Institute of

Technology

and

Advanced

Learning,

205

Humber

College

Boulevard,

Toronto,

Ontario,

Canada

M9W

5L7.

.

Kent

Schroeder (corresponding author)

is

the International

Project

Director

in the

Business School

of the Humber Institute

of

Technology

and

Advanced

Learning.

He

has worked

for

eight

years

with NGOs and academic institutions

in

designing,

managing,

and

evaluating

international

development

projects.

He

also has

experience

of

managing

and

evaluating

a

capacity-building

programme

in the Canadian Arctic. Contact

details:

The

Business

School,

Humber

Institute of

Technology

and

Advanced

Learning,

205 Humber

College

Boulevard,

Toronto,

Ontario,

Canada

M9W 5L7.

432

Development

in

Practice,

Volume

17,

Number

3,

June

2007

Documents

1- Results-Based Management - Friend or Foe.pdf