NAVIGATING THE LABYRINTH: THE INTERPLAY OF STRUCTURE, POWER, AND CONTEXT IN ADAPTIVE PROJECT MANAGEMENT – A MULTI-STAKEHOLDER INQUIRY FROM SIERRA LEONE.
Abstract
This doctoral research article presents a critical, multi-layered analysis of the institutional, contextual, and operational determinants that enable and constrain the practice of Adaptive Project Management (APM) within the international development sector. Grounded in an in-depth instrumental case study of Christian Aid and its partner network in Sierra Leone's complex post-conflict environment, this study interrogates the profound gap between APM's theoretical promise and its grounded, often problematic, reality. Despite being championed as a necessary evolution from rigid, blueprint approaches to navigate volatile contexts, evidence of APM's consistent, effective, and equitable implementation remains scarce. This research addresses this empirical and conceptual gap by posing a central question: How do institutional, contextual, and operational factors influence the perceived efficacy and practice of Adaptive Project Management from the multi-stakeholder perspectives of an international NGO, its local partners, and community beneficiaries in Sierra Leone? Employing a robust qualitative, interpretivist methodology, this research synthesizes rich data collected over a six-month period (January – July 2025). The dataset comprises 42 in-depth semi-structured interviews, 6 focus group discussions, extensive documentary analysis of project and strategy documents, and 30 days of participant observation. This multi-method approach is designed to capture the lived experiences and perceptions of the entire aid chain ecosystem: international NGO staff, local implementing partners, and community beneficiaries, thereby moving beyond donor-centric analyses. The findings reveal a landscape of profound tension and contradiction. While APM is championed at the strategic level for enhancing programme relevance and resilience, its practical implementation is mediated and often constrained by powerful structural forces. These include rigid donor accountability regimes that incentivise isomorphic mimicry (Andrews et al., 2017), where the form of adaptation is adopted for legitimacy rather than functional performance. Significant power asymmetries within partnership models, analysed through Lukes' (2005) three-dimensional framework, constrain genuine local agency and agenda-setting power (Banks et al., 2015; Ocwieja, 2018). Furthermore, the research identifies high, often unaccounted-for, transaction costs that are disproportionately borne by local organisations (Punton, 2018). The Sierra Leonean context—with its hybrid governance systems, legacies of conflict, and exposure to shocks like the COVID-19 pandemic—acts as a crucial crucible that further shapes and tests the limits of adaptive principles. The study makes three primary contributions. First, it advances a critical integrated theoretical framework that synthesises complexity theory (Snowden & Boone, 2007), principles of collective action (Ostrom, 1990), and theories of power (Lukes, 2005) to provide a multi-dimensional lens for analysing APM. Second, it provides rich, empirical evidence from an under-researched context, centering the voices of Southern actors to offer a holistic understanding of APM's benefits, limitations, and unintended consequences. Third, it derives practical, actionable recommendations for fundamentally re-architecting funding, monitoring, and partnership systems to foster not just technical adaptation, but transformative, equitable, and contextually-grounded development practice. The research concludes that for APM to realise its transformative potential, it must evolve from a set of technical tools into a guiding philosophy that drives a systemic renegotiation of power, risk, and accountability across the entire international aid chain. Keywords: Adaptive Project Management, Complex Systems, International Development, Power, Localisation, Partnerships, Sierra Leone, Isomorphic Mimicry, Transaction Costs, Monitoring & Evaluation.
Keywords
Supporting Institution
Ethical Statement
References
- Andrews, M. (2013). The Limits of Institutional Reform in Development: Changing Rules for Realistic Solutions. Cambridge University Press.
- Andrews, M., Pritchett, L., & Woolcock, M. (2017). Building State Capability: Evidence, Analysis, Action. Oxford University Press.
- Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley.
- Banks, N., Hulme, D., & Edwards, M. (2015). NGOs, States, and Donors Revisited: Still Too Close for Comfort? World Development, 66, 707-718.
- Barder, O. (2012). Development as a Collective Action Problem: Addressing the Real Challenges of African Governance. CGD Working Paper 298.
- Bond, A. (2016). Making Adaptive Rigour Work: Principles and Practices for Strengthening Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning for Adaptive Management. ALNAP/ODI.
- Booth, D., & Unsworth, S. (2014). Politically Smart, Locally Led Development. ODI.
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Details
Primary Language
English
Subjects
Management Sociology
Journal Section
Research Article
Authors
Mattia Dimoh
*
Sierra Leone
Publication Date
March 19, 2026
Submission Date
November 8, 2025
Acceptance Date
March 18, 2026
Published in Issue
Year 2026 Volume: 12 Number: 34