A Comparative Analysis of Military-Sponsored
Missions and International Organizations
FEATURED PAPER
By Prof. Dr. M.F. HARAKE
MESOS Business School (France)
GBSB Global Business School (Malta)
CEREGE Research Laboratory
University of Poitiers (France)
Abstract
Humanitarian operations constitute a distinct domain of project management that emerges in contexts of acute disruption caused by natural disasters, armed conflicts, and pandemics. Unlike conventional development initiatives, such operations unfold under conditions of volatility, uncertainty, and insecurity, requiring approaches that balance speed, adaptability, legitimacy, and sustainability. This paper undertakes a comparative analysis of two principal paradigms of humanitarian project management: military-sponsored missions and international humanitarian organizations (IHOs). Military operations are characterized by hierarchical command structures, centralized decision-making, and extensive logistical assets. These features enable rapid mobilization and large-scale interventions, particularly in insecure or infrastructure-deficient environments. However, their rigid operating procedures, high financial costs, and association with state interests often constrain adaptability and compromise perceptions of neutrality. By contrast, IHOs including the International Committee of the Red Cross and Médecins Sans Frontières prioritize humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality, and independence. Their project management practices emphasize participatory planning, stakeholder accountability, and contextual adaptability. Despite limited logistical resources and dependence on external funding, IHOs enjoy legitimacy and community trust, which are crucial for access and long-term resilience. The analysis identifies five key dimensions of divergence: command and control, resource mobilization, stakeholder engagement, flexibility, and perceptions of neutrality. Case studies such as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, the 2010 Haiti earthquake, and the 2014 Ebola crisis illustrate both tensions and complementarities. Militaries excel in scale and speed, while IHOs contribute legitimacy and cultural sensitivity. Hybrid approaches, combining military logistical capacity with humanitarian expertise, emerge as promising models for enhancing effectiveness. The paper concludes that advancing humanitarian project management requires structured civil–military coordination mechanisms, adoption of shared standards, joint training, and sustainability-oriented planning. By integrating efficiency with legitimacy, humanitarian interventions can achieve outcomes that are not only timely but also principled, thereby reinforcing the core objective of alleviating human suffering.
Key Words: Humanitarian Operations, Project Management, Military-Sponsored Missions, International Humanitarian Organizations, Civil-Military Coordination, Sustainability
1. Introduction
1.1 Background of Humanitarian Operations
Humanitarian operations are large-scale interventions aimed at alleviating human suffering caused by disasters, armed conflicts, and pandemics. They involve the rapid deployment of resources, personnel, and logistics to provide essential services such as food, shelter, medical care, and protection (Apte, 2010; Tatham & Kovács, 2010; Thomas & Kopczak, 2005). These operations require robust project management frameworks to ensure efficiency, timeliness, and accountability in highly uncertain and volatile environments (Altay & Green, 2006; Cozzolino, 2012a). Unlike traditional development projects, humanitarian projects are often reactive, short-term, and carried out under extreme constraints, which places unique demands on their management approaches (Walker & Maxwell, 2009; Dubey et al., 2019).
Two dominant actors in humanitarian operations are military-sponsored missions and international humanitarian organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), and United Nations agencies. Both actors aim to reduce human suffering, but they operate under different mandates, organizational cultures, and stakeholder expectations (Studer, 2001; Burkle et al., 2014). The contrast between them lies not only in their resources but also in how they structure, plan, and execute humanitarian interventions (Altay & Labonte, 2011; Heaslip & Tatham, 2022).
More…
To read entire paper, click here
How to cite this work: Harake, M. F. (2025). Humanitarian Operations in Project Management: A Comparative Analysis of Military-Sponsored Missions and International Organizations, PM World Journal, Vol. XIV, Issue IX, September. Available online at https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/pmwj156-Sep2025-Harake-Humanitarian-Operations-in-Project-Management-Comparaison.pdf
About the Author
Prof. Dr. M. F. HARAKE
Bordeaux, France
Prof. Dr. M. F. HARAKE is a management professor based in France. He currently serves as the Assistant General Manager and Dean of Academic Affairs at MESOS Business School (France). In addition, he is the Manager of the Research Center at GBSB Global Business School (Malta). He is also affiliated as an Associate Research Fellow at the CEREGE Research Laboratory, University of Poitiers (France). Prof. Harake’s research interests include Post-Conflict Public Management, Crisis and Urgent Operations Management, Humanitarian Logistics, and Project Management in Unstable Environments. His academic and professional contributions focus on bridging strategic theory with high-impact practical execution, especially in volatile and complex contexts.
He can be contacted at mfharake@mesos-bs.com
To view other works by Prof Harake, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at https://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/mohamad-fadl-harake/
