Project Management Practices and Literacy Project Implementation Performance in rural Rwanda

Methods A cross-sectional case-study design was used. Quantitative data were collected from 101 project implementers using a structured questionnaire. Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation and multiple linear regression were used to examine associations between project planning and scope management, resource allocation and budgeting, stakeholder engagement, monitoring, evaluation and quality control, government policy support, and project implementation performance. Results: Project implementation performance had a mean score of 18.75 (SD = 2.95). Project planning and scope management had the highest mean score (M = 19.96, SD = 3.24). Planning and scope management (r= .614, p< .001), resource allocation and budgeting (r= .588, p< .001), and monitoring, evaluation and quality control (r= .594, p< .001) were positively associated with implementation performance. In the multivariable model, planning and scope management (β = .515, p< .001), monitoring, evaluation and quality control (β = .475, p< .001), and resource allocation and budgeting (β = .438, p< .001) remained positively associated with implementation performance. Stakeholder engagement (β = .022, p= .577) and government policy support (β = .076, p= .055) were not statistically significant. The model accounted for 86.0% of the variance in implementation performance (adjusted R 2 = .853). The non-significant association for stakeholder engagement may indicate that stakeholder participation, as measured in this study, did not translate into sufficient community ownership or influence over implementation processes to distinguish implementation performance. The study concludes that planning and scope management, resource allocation and budgeting, and monitoring, evaluation and quality control were the project management dimensions most strongly associated with implementation performance. Strengthening these practices may support more consistent delivery of literacy interventions in rural settings. Because the study was cross-sectional and relied primarily on self-reported measures, the findings should be interpreted as associations rather than causal effects.