Doctoral Thesis Defense
Case Study in Haiti
by Dener François
Thesis Director: Dr. Ramón Sánchez Noda
Universidad Internacional Iberoamericana
September 2025 - 1:00 PM Québec Time
The "Cyclo-Chaotic" Context
FRAM vs. STAMP
Methodology & Key Paradoxes
The Multi-Orbital Solution
Recommendations & Perspectives
Haiti has long been a recipient of international cooperation aid, a system developed after World War II as an extension of the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Europe. However, after more than 80 years and despite billions injected into the cooperation sector, project results are barely visible and often spark controversy.
This animation symbolizes this chaos: a whirlwind of risks, stakeholder conflicts, and systemic complexities where traditional linear approaches fail.
5.5 M
People in acute food insecurity.
1 M+
Internally displaced persons.
48%
Projects fail to produce sustainable results.
Failure
Of traditional, linear management models.
Source: 2024, 2025 World Bank Report
To navigate this chaos, a systemic approach is required. My research builds on the principles of FRAM (Functional Resonance Analysis Method), chosen for its unique suitability to complex, adaptive environments over other models like STAMP.
| Criteria | FRAM (Our Chosen Approach) | STAMP |
|---|---|---|
| Core Philosophy | Success and failure stem from the same source: everyday performance variability ("Work-as-Done"). It focuses on understanding adaptations and building resilience (Hollnagel, 2012). | Accidents result from inadequate control and the violation of safety constraints within a hierarchical structure. Safety is treated as a control problem (Leveson, 2011). |
| Practical Approach | Bottom-up: Analyzes daily activities and adaptations to model how the system truly functions. It's ideal for "cyclo-chaotic" contexts where formal procedures are often bypassed. | Top-down: Models the hierarchical control structure to identify where safety constraints failed. It can be less effective when the formal structure doesn't reflect the reality on the ground. |
| Analysis Focus | How normal performance adjustments can resonate and amplify to produce unexpected outcomes. It seeks systemic understanding, not a single root cause (Patriarca et al., 2020). | Failures and inadequacies in the control structure that allowed the accident to occur. It has a higher learning curve due to its formal structure. |
A mixed-method approach was employed to capture the multi-faceted reality of public health programs in Haiti.
Problem:
What are the performance outcomes of three key public health programs in Haiti, and what are the most effective ways to address their shortcomings?
Key Questions:
Objective:
To demonstrate the performance outcomes of these programs and propose an integrated, optimized, multi-dimensional risk management model.
Hypothesis (H1):
The proper perception and implementation of the risk management process significantly influence the performance of international development projects.
Case Study
3 National Health Programs (HIV/AIDS, TB, Malaria)
108
Key Actors Surveyed
Mixed-Method
Quantitative surveys, focus groups, and semi-structured interviews
Our field investigation revealed critical paradoxes that validate our research framework and highlight the need for a systemic model.
78% of managers hold advanced degrees, yet only ~7% use a formal risk register. This highlights a critical gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application.
This paradox directly answers the research question regarding the **integration of risk management tools**. It validates our hypothesis (H1) by showing that poor implementation of formal processes harms performance, and it supports the FRAM framework by illustrating the gap between 'Work-as-Imagined' (experts using tools) and 'Work-as-Done' (experts improvising).
Political and financial risks are cited 15x more often than internal organizational risks, indicating a systematic externalization of blame that prevents internal learning and adaptation.
This finding validates hypothesis (H1) by revealing a **flawed perception of risk** that hinders performance. It justifies the systemic approach of FRAM, which, unlike traditional methods, does not seek a single root cause but rather analyzes how internal and external variabilities mutually influence each other.
Less than 46% of actors are satisfied with stakeholder management. The very structure of international aid often creates coordination conflicts and hinders effective communication.
This paradox answers our research question on **conflict management and communication**. It demonstrates that the characteristics of the system itself (the operational mode of international aid) are a major source of dysfunction, which is a fundamental principle of the FRAM analytical framework.
Static evaluations (Baseline, Mid-term, Final) are systematically rendered obsolete by the "cyclo-chaotic" environment, failing to capture the reality of "Work-as-Done" and measuring indicators that are no longer relevant.
This finding **validates the objective of proposing an integrated and adaptive management model**. The ineffectiveness of traditional evaluations demonstrates the need for a continuous monitoring system capable of adjusting to performance variability, which is at the heart of our proposal and the FRAM model.
The research analysis synthesized these paradoxes into four fundamental problems that any effective solution must address.
A lack of a shared, proactive risk management strategy at all levels of intervention.
Issues in identifying and mapping data for an integrated and optimal management of risks.
Poor utilization of available tools for risk management and effective decision-making.
Deficiencies in managing conflicts, leading to resource misallocation and confusion in roles.
The model is structured in concentric layers: from the central organizational Core (identity, resources), through Portfolios, Programs, and Projects, down to the Tasks that interact directly with the external environment.
The three pillars (Risk, Stakeholder, and Conflict Management) are not sequential steps but are mobilized simultaneously to ensure a holistic, adaptive, and integrated response to emerging challenges.
This approach allows the organization to pool its functions, roles, and resources. It creates a more economical and responsible dynamic, maximizing impact by breaking down operational silos.
Let's break down the core concepts of the "Multi-Cyclical, Orbital, and Rotational Model with Continuous Iteration".
Risk is not a linear event. Addressing one risk often creates new, more complex ones. The model treats risk management as an endless cycle of adaptation, not a problem to be solved once.
Project components (tasks, phases, programs) and processes (risk, conflict, stakeholder management) are not isolated. They orbit a central strategic goal, influencing each other in a dynamic gravitational field of interactions.
Moving away from linear, sequential execution. The model operates in successive waves of continuous increments. This allows for constant learning and adaptation, making the system resilient.
The model's originality lies in its shift from a logic of control and prediction to one of understanding and adaptation. It provides a systemic framework applicable not only to project management but also to public policy, corporate governance, and personal development by treating risk as an integral part of the system, not an external threat. A successful implementation strategy involves fostering a culture of psychological safety, deploying integrated data tools (the Orchestrum toolkit), and empowering local actors to make decentralized, adaptive decisions.
The model provides three interconnected perspectives for decision-making, allowing for a holistic analysis from the highest strategic level to daily operations.
The highest level of analysis, connecting the initiative to the broader socio-political and economic context.
This interactive simulation demonstrates the model's dynamics. Use the controls to change perspectives and trigger scenarios to see how the system adapts.
To make the model operational, a suite of practical, integrated tools has been developed, centralized within a web application concept named Orchestrum.
A dynamic, actionable system to identify, evaluate, and monitor risks, structured to facilitate continuous adaptation and decision-making.
A logical and visual guide for prioritizing risks and actions, optimizing resource allocation by focusing on the most critical systemic nodes.
The model uses the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle as a proactive framework for anticipating, mapping, engaging with, and learning from conflicts.
Analyser le contexte, identifier les acteurs et leurs intérêts. Cartographier les conflits potentiels (sources, dynamiques) et définir des objectifs clairs de prévention ou de résolution. Planifier les ressources et les stratégies d'engagement.
Exécuter la stratégie planifiée. Initier le dialogue, ouvrir les canaux de communication, mettre en place les mécanismes de médiation ou de négociation prévus. Déployer les actions préventives pour désamorcer les tensions.
Suivre en continu l'évolution de la situation conflictuelle. Mesurer l'efficacité des actions menées par rapport aux objectifs fixés. Collecter les retours des parties prenantes et analyser les écarts et les résultats inattendus.
Sur la base de l'évaluation, ajuster la stratégie. Corriger les actions inefficaces, capitaliser sur les succès et intégrer les leçons apprises. Si une approche est fructueuse, la standardiser pour renforcer la capacité de résilience du projet face aux futurs conflits.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my thesis director, the jury members, my family, friends, and all the participants in Haiti whose contributions were invaluable to this research.
?
Questions?