From strategic outcomes to project delivery: A spotlight interview with Owen Edwards

Delivering development projects within the United Nations (UN) system requires more than mastering tools and processes. It calls for adaptive leadership and the ability to navigate institutional complexity. In this spotlight interview, we speak with Owen Edwards, Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist at the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), whose 18 years of experience span large‑scale programme delivery in Africa and strategic advisory roles at the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) headquarters. His background across results‑based management (RBM), human resources (HR) and organizational processes offers a rare, holistic lens on what effective project management truly demands. 

Joining him in the conversation is UNSSC’s Ransford Mensa, a seasoned expert in digital transformation, enterprise architecture, project management and change management. Together, they reflect on translating ambitious results frameworks into operational reality, balancing competing institutional demands, and leading teams through increasingly resource‑constrained environments, offering practical insights for project managers navigating today’s complex development landscape.  

Ransford: Owen, we connected months ago, and what immediately impressed me was your experience both in field delivery and at headquarters. How has moving between implementation and strategic roles shaped the way you think about project management? 

Owen: My project management journey started with a Master’s in Implementation and Management of Development Projects. It was very practical: risk management, matrices, logframes – all tools I applied while managing large programmes in Rwanda and Ethiopia, each around USD 100 million. 

Later, at UNDP headquarters, I shifted into strategic support for project managers. Moving from field delivery to headquarters was a significant adjustment. In the field, the pace and energy are high, everyone is pushing to achieve tangible results, and every day requires adaptation. At headquarters, the role becomes one of listening, supporting, and ensuring policies help practitioners rather than overwhelm them. 

This experience showed me that project managers cannot rely solely on technical project management tools. They need a broader understanding of results-based management, finance, HR and organizational dynamics. Only then can policies truly support delivery. At the strategic level, you need to have a bird-eye view of project management and need to understand these areas as a whole. My time working in HR also shaped how I advise on people management and contracting – essential elements of project delivery that are often underestimated. 

Ransford: You mentioned needing to “touch” many parts of the organization, like an octopus. That resonated with me. Another challenge many of us face is receiving a broad results framework and trying to translate it into concrete plans. Where do you begin? 

Owen: In development work, ambitions often originate with partners – frequently governments –who focus on outcomes and impact. These expectations often exist before the project design is complete.  

The first step is to clarify what success looks like. One of the most common failures is assuming that partners and implementers share the same definition of success when they actually do not. Some think in terms of outcomes, while others focus on outputs. 

Once there is a common understanding of what success is, you can use traditional tools like the theory of change to outline the causal pathway and co‑create the narrative of how change will happen. This informs the results framework and helps define scope, risks, assumptions and deliverables. The key is continuous communication and alignment with the partner and, going back to the definition of success, with real agreement on a broader understanding of success. 

This is especially important today, as UN organizations are expected to achieve more ambitious results with fewer resources. Project managers must become more comfortable with outcomes and impact, even when attribution is shared. Increasingly, donors expect evidence at outcome level, not just outputs. We need to get comfortable with understanding outcomes and impact as we deliver projects, as we are increasingly asked to demonstrate clear results for the smaller resources we are provided. 

Ransford: Alongside these pressures, we often hear “do more with less.” As project managers, we are stuck between ambitious outcomes, tight timelines and limited budgets. How do you navigate that tension? 

Owen: Transparency is crucial. Project managers sometimes hesitate to voice constraints because they feel responsible for delivering no matter what. In reality, partners are often receptive to discussing challenges. After all, they set the outcomes. 

Communicate risks early. Use planning tools and risk registers actively rather than as filing requirements. Bring people together when needed – through risk workshops, sense‑making sessions, or theory‑of‑change reviews – to explore options collectively. 

Supporting your team is equally important. Ambitious outcomes can overwhelm staff, especially during project inception. Emotional intelligence, reassurance and clear communication help teams stay motivated. In Rwanda, when I managed a project that aimed to deliver land certificates to 12 million people within three years, staff were understandably anxious. Strong leadership and coordinated planning allowed us to reach the target. 

Ransford: You are one of the rare people who combines RBM and project management expertise. Sometimes RBM can feel like it imposes theoretical expectations while project managers focus on practical delivery. How do you reconcile the two? 

Owen: The two disciplines overlap, but they serve different functions. RBM is a strategic management approach; project management is an operational one. A good project manager does not have to be an RBM specialist, but they do need empathy for RBM. 

When I manage projects, I tell RBM colleagues: start with what is necessary. RBM adds value when it informs decisions – for example, when monitoring data showed that rains and vehicle procurement delays in Ethiopia required changes to our deployment schedule. That was critical. 

But RBM can also propose “interesting” analyses that are not immediately necessary. Those can wait. At the same time, project managers must recognize that RBM brings tools – adaptive management, learning loops, qualitative impact methods – that traditional project management alone cannot provide, especially in complex or fragile contexts. 

When both sides respect each other’s needs – practical delivery and strategic insight – the project benefits enormously. 

Ransford: You mentioned focusing first on what is necessary. Project managers sit at the intersection of many competing pressures: M&E requirements, procurement timelines that rarely allow flexibility, and fixed budgets. All demands are valid, yet they pull out the project in different directions. How do you navigate competing demands without losing sight of the results you must achieve? 

Owen: The starting point is understanding, at least at a functional level, the rules and regulations under which each team member operates. Many tensions arise because project managers are unaware of the constraints shaping decisions in finance, HR, procurement, or M&E. Understanding these constraints leads to more realistic planning and better-managed expectations. 

Project managers need a solid grasp of key procedures and timelines that shape project delivery. This includes financial approval processes, procurement cycles and publication requirements for terms of reference, thresholds for express versus long-term procurement, staff performance management processes, and the structure of logframes and reporting commitments. Many implementation pressures can be avoided through clearer awareness of these systems and earlier planning. 

Effective planning is essential for managing demand.  The project manager must work with procurement and M&E colleagues to reassess schedules and, if needed, renegotiate commitments with partners. Understanding procurement planning helps anticipate challenges and prevent bottlenecks. 

Equally important is structuring teams to enable collaboration rather than reinforcing silos. Development projects are often divided between operations and technical teams that interact little, leading to misalignment. Project managers play a key role in fostering communication and ensuring that all parts of the team work toward shared objectives. Even with strong planning, competing demands arise. When they do, active listening and inclusive problem-solving are essential. Bringing the relevant colleagues together – rather than addressing issues in isolation – leads to more effective solutions. 

In many UN contexts, when workloads increase, teams abandon core tools such as monitoring plans, risk reviews and theory-of-change updates. Yet these tools are central to effective delivery. Resource constraints often mean projects start under pressure because foundational processes were not fully considered during planning. Unrealistic expectations at inception can create cascading pressure during implementation. 

Teams are more likely to use project management tools consistently when they see their practical value. When a risk register prevents a problem or a theory of change strengthens reporting, these benefits should be highlighted. 

It is also important to show how project tools connect to one another. Risk matrices, logframes, and theories of change are often treated as separate exercises, but they are deeply interconnected. Using them together strengthens coherence and reduces unnecessary work. 

Ultimately, quality matters more than quantity. Tools such as theories of change add value only when they are actively used. When time or capacity is limited, it is better to focus meaningfully on a few essential tools, such as planning, results frameworks and risk management, rather than completing many requirements superficially.