Journal of Service Science and Management, 2011, 4, 261-267
doi:10.4236/jssm.2011.43031 Published Online September 2011 (
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JSSM
A Novel Methodology for Project Assessment and
Fawwaz Elkarmi, Nazih Abu Shikhah, Zakariyah Alomari, Fawwaz Alkhatib
Faculty of Enginee r ing, Ahliyya Amman Unive r sity, Amman, Jordan .
Email: {fkarmi, nabushi k, zomari},
Received June 9th, 2011; revised July 25th, 2011; accepted August 10th, 2011.
Technical and managerial viewpoints are important elements in the assessment and evaluation of project success. Pro-
ject success can be measured by the level of achieving project objectives. A by-product of this process will lead to pro-
viding an independent and, unbiased opinion on the gains and losses attributed to the project. This may be interpreted
as a way of performing a rough benefit/cost analysis. The process is done through addressing key issues that will lead
to an action plan which serves in optimizing th e sustainable benefits of the p roject and mitigate the negative aspects, or
failures, of the project. The assessment and evaluation process must focus on providing the management and stake-
holders involved in any project with solutions and directions that will serve in project success to achieve its objectives.
The proposed methodology was used in the final evaluation of an energy efficiency program in a developing country.
The overall objective achievement for the project reached about 80%, which is a good result. Moreover, the overall
calculated B/C ratio for the project is 1.31, which indicates the wellbeing of that project.
Keywords: Project Evaluation and Assessment Tools, Benefit Cost Ratio, Risk/Impact Analysis
1. Introduction
Projects represent the driving force for success of socie-
ties, companies and individuals.
Once project targets are set out, and as the project
commences, then it must be monitored and evaluated to
check for its success and efficiency. This is not an easy
task, and many measures are implemented to keep track
of project performance and consistency thereof. In the
advanced stages, i.e. upon project completion, a final
assessment and evaluation should be carried out which
will lead to determine the effectiveness of project im-
plementation, assessing the impact and sustainability of
results, highlighting issues requiring decisions and ac-
tions, and Presenting initial lessons concerning the pro-
ject design, implementation and management.
The project being evaluated in this paper is an energy
efficiency project at the national level in one of the de-
veloping countries. One of the authors was contracted to
perform a final evaluation process of the project. The
project at the time of the final evaluation was practically
complete after two and a half years since inception. The
terms of reference and scope of work for the final
evaluation was prepared by the contracting en tity.
The process of project evaluation involves imple-
menting different tasks including:
1) Review of project concept, design, and performance
in terms of: timeliness, quality of inputs, cost-effec-
tiveness, efficient utilization of inputs available, quality
and quantity of outputs produced, achievement of imme-
diate objectives, efficiency of project management and
institutional framewo rk, quality and effectiveness of tech -
nical support, and quality and tim eliness of m onitoring.
2) Review of project impact in terms of economic,
technological, and social effects.
3) Systematic dissemination of project results, utiliza-
tion of the personnel trained under the project.
4) Sustainability of project achievements, and envi-
ronmental considerations.
5) Negative effects, and the lessons learned repre-
sented by the major problems in project implementation,
and the impacts on the development of the project owner.
Energy sector related projects are very important in
modern world, as they touch the daily needs of individu-
als, companies, utilities, and g overnments. Measuring the
success of any energy-related project is very important
due to its impact on the stakeholders.
In this paper a proposed meth odo logy is laid ou t that is
properly designed to assess the degree of success of a
given energy oriented project. This is done through the
A Novel Methodology for Project Assessment and Evaluation
analysis of surveys and queries which produce project
progress related indicators. The validity of this method-
ology was tested as it was implemented in a developing
country and results reflected the project situation to a
high degree of reality.
The people in charge of that project did not want the
authors to cite the name of the project or the country, for
reasons the authors do not understand. This looks pecu-
liar in light of the good results of the project.
This paper is organized as follows: in Section 2 project
monitoring, evaluation and control are discussed. In Sec-
tion 3 the assessment and evaluation tools are presented
and outlined . Section 4 demonstr ates energy sector prob-
lems and challenges, and Section 5 describes the imple-
mentation process and Section 6 the results. Finally Sec-
tion 7 present s t he fi nd ings and concl usi ons.
2. Project Monitoring, Evaluation and
Project monitoring is concerned with collecting informa-
tion related to answering questions about the project. It
serves in keeping the project on target and alert man-
agement when something wrong happens, and aims at
improving the efficiency and effectiveness of a project.
Moreover, monitoring provides a useful base for evalua-
tion. It enables management to judge if the resources are
sufficient, being well used, and the plan is met [1].
Evaluation is a comparison of actual impacts of the
project against the planned outcomes and has two main
purposes: a) learning and development; b) accountability
(displaying effectiveness of the project). In general,
evaluation is conducted to gain information before pro-
ject development, as in a needs assessment. This will
serve to improve and refine the project; or to make judg-
ments about its future. There are three main types of
evaluation [2,3]:
1) Developmental evaluation: here, the evaluator plays
a part in the project design and development. Such in-
formation helps in providing feedback to members of the
design team and management so as to enhance the pro-
ject design.
2) Formative evaluation is condu cted for improvement
3) Summative evaluation: is usually conducted after a
project’s completion. It results in determining th e su ccess
level, or value of the project under evaluation so as to
arrive at a final evaluative judgment.
In this paper all three above-mentioned types of eva-
luation are incorporated, however, more emphasis is
given to the third typ e .
The purpose of any evaluation is to perform an in-
depth analysis from technical and managerial viewpoints
to see whether the project has successfully accomplished
its objectives and to evaluate the impact and sustainabil-
ity of the project outcomes. The evaluation will provide
an independent and, hopefully unbiased opinion on the
gains and losses attributed to the project in an attempt to
perform a rough benefit/cost analysis. Furthermore, the
evaluation process will address key issues as to the nec-
essary action plan to optimize the sustainable benefits of
the project and mitigate the negative aspects, or failures,
of the project [1,2]. This will help all stakeholders in re-
orienting and re-prioritizing their specific goals and ob-
jectives to mold with the national goals and objectives
with respect to energy efficiency and to decide on a pre-
ferred course of action; i.e. business plan.
In summary, various reasons prove the importance of
project evaluation including, inter alia, [2,4]:
1) Understand, verify or increase the impact of output
on clients.
2) Improve delivery mechanisms to be more efficient
and less costly.
3) Verify th at the plan is running as orig inally planned
in terms of time and budget.
4) Facilitate management's thinking in terms of the
degree of meeting objectives.
5) Produce data or verify results that can be used in
future aspects.
6) Produce valid comparisons that will aid decisions
related to continuing or retaining the project.
7) Examine and describe effective programs and avoid
mistakes encountered.
Project Control deals with four main resources: money,
manpower, materials, and equipment [5]. It comes into
action based on monitoring the performance, cost and
time factors related to the project [5-8].
Project control may come into action when more re-
sources or less resources have been used than planned,
or when activities are taking longer than planned, or if
the cost of an activity (or of project as a whole) is higher
than expected. The project control process involves one
or more of the following actions: 1) adjust the resources;
2) increase the number of labor; 3) employ more quali-
fied labor; 4) provide better supervision; 5) provide more
and/or better supplies; 6) provide more and/or better
equipment; 7) inject more money; 8) adjust the project
characteristics: size, scope, etc.; 9) reduce project size,
and/or scope; and 10) terminate the project.
3. Assessment and Evaluation Tools
3.1. Risk Management
Risk Management (RM) refers to the logical and system-
atic method of: identifying, analyzing, treating and moni-
toring the risks involved in any activity, process, or pro-
ject. RM is usually considered an integral part of any
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JSSM
A Novel Methodology for Project Assessment and Evaluation263
business plan of any organization or project. This implies
that it is important to identify as many risks to the project
as possible so that a contingency plan(s) can be prepared.
Some of the common project risks are [7]: 1) too opti-
mistic time and cost estimates; 2) very slow customer
review and feedback cycle; 3) unexpected budget cuts; 4)
unclear roles and responsibilities; 5) stakeholder related
risks; 6) poor communication resulting in misunder-
standings, quality problems and rework; 7) lack of re-
source commitment.
The adopted RM plan must take care of the following
issues: methodology, roles and responsibilities, budget-
ing, timing, risk ranking, risks and impacts defining,
stakeholder tolerances, reporting formats, and tracking
Various methods are available and used to identifying
risk including [7,8]: interviewing, assumptions analysis,
brainstorming, Delphi technique, SWOT analysis, root
cause analysis, checklist analysis , diagramming methods
(e.g. Cause-&-Effect diagram, System process flowcharts,
Influence diagrams). The simplest technique to track risks
is to use a risk log, and then add each identified risk to this
log along with action taken. The resulting risk list must be
followed up regularly bearing in mind the fact that ignor-
ing risks doesn’t mean that they have gone away.
3.2. Risk/Impact Analysis
All projects must deliver certain po sitive results which in
tern have positive impacts on the associated surrounding
environments. For example, an energy efficiency project
is expected to have impacts on consumers, power utilities,
and the market. Each of the project stakeholders is con-
cerned with specific benefits which may be common
with others or unique. On the other hand, some of these
benefits may be in conflict with other benefits. This is
illustrated, as an example, by the desire of the power
utility to maximize its profit while consumers seek to
reduce their bills.
Positive impacts or consequences of any project are
usually challenged and faced with certain risks. The in-
teraction between risks and impacts is what determines
overall project feasibility. If risks that are not monitored ,
not identified or not mitigated exceed the positive im-
pacts of the project then there is a big chance that the
project is a failure. If, on the other hand, impacts exceed
risks and their consequences then the project is likely to
be a success.
Since risk/impact analysis is subjective in nature, a
quantification methodology is required to translate the
risks/impacts into measurable quantities. The results can
then be used to j udge on the validity and effectiven ess or
success of the project.
In the project under investigation, the chosen risk/im-
pact weights (scores) were selected to reflect the degree
of their effect such that the associated score increases as
the risk/impact increases. This relationship can be de-
picted as shown in Figure 1, where this matrix can be
used to classify risks/impacts associated with a given
project, the likelihood of occurrence, and the appropriate
action to be done.
It is easily seen that high risks/impacts and high prob-
ability of occurrence have high scores, while low risks/
impacts and low probability of occurrence have lowest
scores. Naturally risks have a negative consequence
while impacts have positive consequences. This means
that a high risk item associate d with a high probability o f
occurrence means a disaster, for example. On the other
hand a low risk item with low probability of occurrence
can be tolerated. When risks are mitigated their negative
consequences are reduced. Similarly, positive impacts
need to be monitored and realized in order to benefit
from them; otherwise if their likelihood of occurrence is
low their score will be low. Practically speaking, risk/
impact is usually quantified by assigning weight factors
or scores to the risk/impact levels. The mitigated risks
are also assigned specific weights.
3.3. Cost/Benefit Ratio (CBR)
Cost/benefit analysis has usefu l applications esp ecially in
large governmental projects as it quantifies the project
components in terms of monetary equivalents. Usually
the assessment is done by adding all cost and benefit
elements. This represents a common sense and attractive
approach, however, it has two main drawbacks: a) the
difficulty of quantifying all benefit and cost elements
into monetary equivalents; and b) misleading conclusions
Figure 1. Risk rating matrix.
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JSSM
A Novel Methodology for Project Assessment and Evaluation
that may be made when aggregate benefits exceed ag-
gregate cost and vice versa. The benefit cost ratio is a
method for analyzing the desirability of public works
projects, or any other project where benefits and costs
can be quantified [9].
In the cost benefit analysis, the costs (C) are the an-
ticipated expenditures for construction, operation and
maintenance, etc. while the benefits (B) are related to the
advantages to the owner (The owner may be the public).
On the other hand the disbenefits (D) represent the dis-
advantages to the owner when the project under consid-
eration is implemented.
The BCR is computed using th e absolute values and is
given as:
(BenefitsDisbenefits)B D
BCR Costs C
B, C and D must all be in same dollar units (i.e. pre-
sent, or annual, or future worth valu es). If BCR is gr eater
than unity then the project is advantageous.
For projects involving operation and maintenance
costs and a disposal value, then the modified BCR must
be used to judge for the project v iability. This is given as:
BenefitsDisbenefitsO & M costs
MBCR I n itial InvestmentSalvage
Net Benefits
Net Costs
3.4. Proxy Analysis
In this paper the authors use what is called the proxy ana-
lysis, whereby impacts are converted into monetary val-
ues and equated to benefits. On the other hand, risks are
converted into monetary values and equa ted to costs. The
proxy analysis is a tool that is used when certain project
parameters are not readily available. Other similar or
equivalent factors, which are easily calculated, are used
in place of the original factors. As such, proxy analysis
represents a procedure that is utilized in determining the
value of the impacts/risks of a given project. Due to the
lack of data, this form of analysis examines how the pro-
ject partners evaluate the project impacts/risks. Once an
acceptable number of the partners’ representatives have
been have been identified, analyses on various project
impacts/risks can be performed. Upon completion of the
statistical analyses of the data the finding s can be utilized
in comparing the achievements incurred in the objectives
against the target. The results are then utilized in deter-
mining the appropriate actions to be implemented to en-
hance the outputs of objectives.
4. Energy Sector Problems and Challenges
The potential problems and challenges that face the en-
ergy sector are huge in any country. This will define the
scope of energy related projects and serve in putting re-
alistic solutions. The related problems and challenges in
the energy sector in the country of the project are classi-
fied, but not limited, to the following categories:
4.1. Policy
1) Low generation capacity reserve margin during the hot
summer season or the cold winter season.
2) Lack of explicit national policy at end-use levels.
3) Environmental costs are not reflected in energy tar-
4) Non existence of a central institution to adopt and
implement a national energy efficiency strategy.
5) Little incentives to save energy due to subsidized
energy prices. This leads to low energy prices which may
contribute to a wasteful behavior with respect to energy
4.2. Market Environment
1) Rapidly increasing energy demand driven by eco-
nomic and social development.
2) Enormous capital required to expand the supply
system in order to meet demand, specifically the cost of
electricity generation/transmission/distribution systems.
3) Large seasonal variation in electricity consumption
due to the changes in weather.
4.3. Technology
1) Lack of awareness of energy saving opportunities,
technologies, practices, and benefits, at both the utility
and customer levels.
2) Lack of energy efficiency culture among consum-
3) Lack of skilled cadre of managers, engineers and
technicians in the various fields and disciplines of energy
4) Risk aversion towards investing in new technolo-
gies and consequently, reluctance to commit capital to
energy efficiency projects offering 2 - 3 year payback
All of the above factors lead to the reluctance of fi-
nancial institutions to invest in energy efficiency pro-
The project under investigation, which is the focus of
assessment and evaluation presented in the paper, came
into existence to alleviate some of these problems and
challenges. This project aims to establish energy effi-
ciency activities within the relevant country. The project
included eight objectives, which if achieved, would help
the country solve some of the problems and challenges
facing the energy sector. These objectives are listed in
Table 1.
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JSSM
A Novel Methodology for Project Assessment and Evaluation265
5. Implementation
5.1. Methodologies
The techniques and methodologies adopted in the as-
sessment and evaluation of the project involved various
tools and procedures. These are divided into the follow-
ing main categories:
1) Thorough review of the project document (PD),
mid-term evaluation report, which was performed by
another expert, and other relevant documents.
2) Questionnaires: These were dispatched before the
evaluation mission. The questionnaires are related to the
abovementioned project objectives.
3) Interviews: These were done on a one-on-one basis
with steering committee (SC) members, project man-
agement, and stakeholders.
4) Discussions with decision makers and stakeholders,
and beneficiaries from project outputs.
5) Logical evaluation sheets to indicate subjective opin-
ions of certain SC members and project l ead engineers.
6) Thorough review of project files and supporting
materials such as minutes of meetings (MOMs), corre-
spondences, and su rvey/field results.
7) Quantification of project risks as costs, impacts as
benefits, performance, turnover ratios.
8) Calculation of objective achievement scores (weighted
9) Assessment and evaluation of lessons learned.
10) Performing a benefit/cost analysis.
In summary, the evaluation process was implemented
in a transparent and participative manner and expert un-
biased opinion was used in deciding if the project was
all-in-all a success or not.
5.2. Impact/Risk (Benefit/Cost) Analysis
The last item is performed through a novel risk/impact
analysis methodology, which is based on giving the level
of impact or risk a certain score defined in Table 2.
The risks identified were due to various factors that are:
5.2.1. Internal
1) Inadequacy of qualified local engineers/technicians/
Table 1. Objectives of the underlying project.
Objective Title
1 Energy Audit Services and Industry Support
2 Energy Efficiency Information and Awareness
3 Load Management and TOU Tariff
4 Efficient Utilization of Oil and Gas
5 Promotion of Energy Service Industry
6 Energy Efficiency La be ls an d S ta nd a rd s f or new
7 Energy Efficient Design and Co ns truction for new
8 Technical and Management Training
field teams, in addition to inadequate linkages among
2) Reluctance to adopt energy efficiency policies:
building codes, tariffs, custom duties, etc.
3) Program is heavily dependant on technology push
rather than market pull.
4) Exceeding allocated budget, and time frame.
5.2.2. External
1) Lack of: a) government support; b) coordination
among stakeholders; c) key players cooperation either in
participation or provision of information; d) data (con-
sumption records, energy efficiency, etc.); and e) clear
incentives for private sector participation/financing.
2) Week project management and week coordination
between stakeholders and international bodies.
3) Improper review system of consultants’ work.
4) Inability to gain su stainable government support for
the utility.
5) Electricity tariff is heavily subsidized such that no
energy efficiency or DSM program would be feasible.
While, on the other hand, the impacts were similarly
identified as:
1) Supporting efficiency improvement and loss reduc-
tion in generation, transmission and distribution of elec-
tric power.
2) Facilitating adoption and implementation of energy
conservation measures in residential, commercial and
industrial sectors through education, promotion, financ-
ing and stand ard settings.
3) Stimulating and guiding the private sector in the
development of a capability for end-use energy effi-
ciency service, planning, feasibility analysis, conceptual
design, and project implementation including the manu-
facture of energy efficient products.
4) Assisting technology and experience transfer (in-
ternational and regional) which is instrumental in energy
consumpt ion reductio n.
5) Promoting public and private sector investments in
energy efficient and environmental friendly projects.
6) Cultural build-up among the decision makers and
technical personnel involved in electricity or energy sec-
tors; hopefully leading to capacity building , and reaching
some critical mass of skilled personnel in certain aspects
Table 2. Impact or risk level scores.
Impact or risk level Score
High 3.0
Medium 2.0
Low 1.0
mitigated multiplication factor 0.5
not mitigated As is
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JSSM
A Novel Methodology for Project Assessment and Evaluation
of the project.
7) Creating a snow ball effect starting from the kick-
off event through project activities and finally follow-up
8) Evidence of changes in policies (decline of con-
sumption growth rates, institutional changes, new laws
and regulations, etc.
9) Economic development: increased productivity
(electricity intensity), job creation, create market for en-
ergy efficiency equipment and consultancy.
10) Offset supply side investment generation/transmis-
sion/distri b uti o n by re d uci n g peak demand.
11) Reduction of system losses.
12) Environmental benefits.
The benefit/cost ratio assessment is carried out using
the proxy analysis. In other words the benefit is calcu-
lated from the positive impact factors, which the project
had. On the other hand the cost is calculated from the
risks associated with the project. The analysis of impacts
(benefits) and risks (costs) yields the sought benefit/cost
ratio. This “benefit/co st” ratio is a good indicator of pro-
ject success in creating the required and desired impacts
with respect to the associated risks.
6. Results
6.1. Objective Achievement Scores
The project has achieved about 80% of its objectives.
This was calculated through a subjective assessment of
the degree of fulfilling the objectives with some consul-
tations and discussions with key project management and
key persons involved in the project. The scoring was
based on assessing the fulfillment of the tasks of each
output for each objective. This resulted in output achie-
vement scores, which were used in calculating a
weighted average for each objective. In other words in
calculating objective achievement scores the weight of
the tasks of each output were factored in the calculation,
i.e. outputs with more tasks had more weight in the ob-
jective achievement score. However, all objectives were
given the same equal weight in calculating the overall
project achievement score.
It is worth mentioning that certain “smart” objectives
had already objective measures. The objective measure
included success criterion. However, some objectives
were not. This obliged the use of subjective judgment of
project personnel, stakeholders, and the opinion of the
reviewer. Table 3 summarizes the output and objective
achievement scores for the project. The following points
can be derived :
1) The overall score of 80% achievement is satisfac-
tory for a project of this size and duration.
2) The high turnover which characterized the project
and the absence of sustainability made it even more dif-
ficult to have higher achievement score.
3) The objective with lowest achievement score is un-
derstandably objective 2 which faced difficulties in all
phases of work and was del ay ed fo r qui t e so me time.
4) Objective 3 ranks the best among all objectives with
a score of 100%. Then objective 4 follows with a score
of 89% and objective 8 with 86%.
It is also worth noting that the project, in addition to
achieving almost 80% of its stated objectives as men-
tioned above, has created some general positive impacts.
For one thing it is the first national program on this very
large scale. Moreover, it addressed several important
issues for the first time.
It also has focused attention on hot issues which were
not previously brought up; such as introducing new tariff
and new building codes. The project has also addressed
the partnership between government and private sector.
The dialogue among the key players of the electricity
sector has been put to test through this project. The re-
sults of the interaction, cooperation, and coordination
efforts are very much encouraging.
6.2. Impact/Risk and Benefit/Cost Analysis
This may be regarded as an initial estimate of the bene-
fit/cost ratio, and is implemented in the quantification of
the assessment of the project. This step was needed to get
the indicators as the project did not have a target objec-
tive achievement goal or key performance indicators to
gauge th e success or failure of the project. Therefore, the
results were assessed in a proxy manner. The overall
results of the project risks and impacts are given as
shown in Table 4.
The ratio of 1.31 is an indication of a “feasible” pro-
ject; although this is already known as the overall objec-
tive achievement is close to 80%. As a matter of fact,
assuming that the energy efficiency issue is sustained,
then this ratio will even be high er due to the rippling and
cascading effects. Although the defined risks (costs) were
Table 3. Objective achievement scores.
ObjectiveDetails Score
1 Energy Audit Services and Indu s t ry
Support 81.6%
2 Energy Efficiency Information and
Awareness 54.8%
3 Load Management and TOU Tariff 100.0%
4 Efficient Utilization of Oil and Gas 88.9%
5 Promotion of Energy Service Industry 70.0%
6 Energy Efficiency Labels and Standards
for new Equipment 82.8%
7 Energy Efficient Design and Construction
for new Buildings 72.0%
8 Technical and Management Training 86.4%
Overall Score 79.5%
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JSSM
A Novel Methodology for Project Assessment and Evaluation
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JSSM
more than the impacts (benefits), which looks to be biased,
analysis results show that the BCR is in favor of impacts
over risks. This means that the project is really feasible.
6.3. Summary of Main Results
The project in hand has sh own that it is really difficult to
assess the degree and level of success in achieving the
objectives of the project. Although the success criteria of
some of the objectives are considered objective measures
it is difficult to quantify the criteria for other objectives.
The achievement scores for all eight objectives of the
project and the overall score for the program as a whole
are all acceptable. In fact, the performance indicator, as a
measure of objective achievement, showed that about
80% of project objectives were achieved. The project
showed that two critical issues: a) capacity building and
sustainability; and b) exit strategy, were not incorporated
in the project document and, therefore, need to be ad-
dressed in the “Business Plan”. These are considered, in
our viewpoint, key objectives that are critical to the suc-
cess of the project. Moreover, the project has also created
unannounced positive impacts, by-benefits, in many dis-
ciplines such as creating a culture of cooperation, coor-
dination and working for the national interests, which cut
across the boundaries of entities, and establishing a first
time consciousness in tariff adjustments, adoption of
building codes, encouraging private sector participation
and attempting to change consumer buying and con-
sumption habits. The analysis of the project turnover
reveals that the project really suffered from a rather high
turnover. The major drawback related to the concept and
design of the project was seen in the lack of inter-link-
ages among objectives. Finally, a novel benefit/cost ratio
concept was adopted and implemented. This ratio was
assessed using the proxy analysis where the benefit is
calculated from the positive impact factors of the project
while the cost is calculated from the risks associated with
the project. The assessment showed that the pr oject has a
Table 4. Project risk/impact (benefit/cost) analysis matrix.
Risk/Impact Total Score
Risks (Costs) 18
Impacts (Benefits) 23.5
Impacts/Risks Ratio = Benefits/Costs Ratio 1.31
B/C ratio of 1.31, which is considered feasible in all
7. Conclusions
This paper presents a novel approach for assessing and
evaluating a large project in the energy management field.
The project is at the nationa l level involv ing stakeholders
and beneficiaries from different institutions and entities,
each with different objectives and motives. The project
scope is very wide and ambitious. It is further a long-
term project covering several years. The methodology
incorporates two metrics; a) objective achievement scor-
ing; and b) impact/risk ratio. The first metric is simply to
calculate the achievement score for each project output.
The overall project achievement score is the weighted
average of all project outputs. The assessment was done
through subjective evaluation with consultations with
key players of project stakeholders, key players, and
[1] N. Doyle, “Project Monitoring and Evaluation Booklet,”
VSO Indonesia, SPARK Livelihoods Programme.
[2] P. H. Rossi, M. W. Lipsey and H. E. Freeman, “Evalua-
tion: A Systematic Approach,” 7th Edition, Sage Publica-
tion, Inc., Thousand Oaks, 2004.
[3] K. A. Small, “Project Evaluation,” Working Paper, Uni-
versity of California Transportaion Centre (UCTC), No.
379, October 1998.
[4] J. C. McDavid and L. R. Hawthorn, “Program Evaluation
and Performance Measurement: An Introduction to Prac-
tice,” Sage Publication, Inc., Thousand Oaks, 2006.
[5] J. R. Meredith and S. J. Mantel Jr., “Project Management:
A Managerial Approach,” 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill,
Boston, 2006
[6] C. F. Gray and E. W. Larson, “Project Management: The
Management Process,” 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill, Lon-
don, 2004.
[7] C. F. Gray and E. W. Larson, “Project Management: The
Complete Guide for Every Managers,” McGraw-Hill,
London, 2007.
[8] H. Kerzner, “Project Management: A Systems Approach
to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling,” 9th Edition,
John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, 2006.
[9] L. T. Blank and A. J. Tarquin, “Engineering Economy,”
6th Edition, McGraw-Hill, Boston, 2005.