Background

Research by ^{Núñez (2005}) focuses on the poor management of approximately 300 projects, roughly equivalent to US$ 26 million, which has a strong impact on the productivity indicators of the systems and organization division of the bank under study. As a solution to this problem, the researcher proposes and designs a Project Management Office to manage the above-mentioned portfolio, fulfilling the functions, roles, and responsibilities in such a way that it can lead the organization’s sales and services.

Another important antecedent is that of the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú (^{PUCP, 2016}) where the team of project managers, the Project Management Office and the Operating Manual for Project Management are internationally recognized, because they enable researchers to achieve the goals set with the funding source by providing them with the best tools.

Lastly, ^{Ramírez (2008}) states that project management in an organization is underestimated, and that there is no open communication between the different areas. Therefore, to improve project management, he proposes the involvement of the entire organization areas in planning and control.

Quality Management

According to ^{Gryna et al. (2007}), service quality is important for customer satisfaction. They distinguish between two types of customers: external customers (actual and potential) and internal customers (who receive information from all areas of the organization). Both are referred to as “interested participants”, as the goal of any service provided is to obtain some benefit, i.e., the external customer, the internal customer, and the organization benefit from it.

Quality management is thus understood as an impulse to start a new stage in the service provided by the organization, using its potential to provide a better service to its stakeholders in the area in which the organization operates. The organization must at all times be mindful of its external and internal customers, as early on as from the design of the service.

^{Miranda et al. (2007}) identify four major approaches that should be applied within a company: inspection, quality control, quality assurance, and total quality maangement. Each of these may be applied to companies and public universities-such as the one under study-through processes, to achieve better quality management and efectiveness in meeting stakeholder objectives.

^{Pérez (1994}) provides a number of steps to be followed in quality management, emphasizing the commitment of Management, involving the commitment of all managers to the improvement processes. Failure to do so would result in a lack of support and collaboration from the staff involved, delaying the adoption of any measures proposed within the institutions. The cost of poor quality must also be taken into account, as it leads to cumbersome processes and a total lack of motivation for any improvement process.

It should be noted that ^{Pérez (1994}) places special emphasis on the step mentioned above for the improvement of processes within quality management; the commitment to achieve quality improvement in any organization rests with senior management and employees.

PDCA Cycle

According to ^{Zapata (2015}), the PDCA cycle is based on four key stages: plan, do, check and act; that is, once the act stage is completed, the planning stage is resumed. This cycle is an essential tool within organizations, as it allows better achievement of quality results and competitiveness in processes, products, and services. It starts from the planning of actions to be executed by competent staff to address non-value adding activities.

Therefore, this cycle can be introduced into the organziation, as planning is an essential factor that will allow compentent staff to make decisions and, thus, obtain quality results in the processes of the organization. The PDCA cycle is continuous, because it returns to the planning stage once the acting stage is completed and the cycle begins again. It uses the feedback from the previous cycle as the new starting point; therefore, it can be compared to a wheel turning on an uphill slope.

^{Pérez and Múnera (2007}) complement ^{Zapata (2015}) and state that the PDCA cycle is dynamic for the processes of an organization and allows for continuous improvement.

Funding Sources

According to ^{Millones (2016}), the Peruvian government allocates millions of soles (PEN) in competitive funds for research through the National Council for Science, Technology and Technological Innovation (Concytec, for its Spanish acronym). Public universities must adapt their statuses and regulations to the new University Law in order to obtain such funding, which entails changes in human resources, infrastructure and research activities. Institutions that do not meet the set requirements, such as infrastructure and equipment, are not eligible for funding.

At the time of writing this paper, the agency in charge of awarding Concytec’s competitive funds was the National Program for Scientific Research and Advanced Studies (Prociencia, for is Spanish acronym), which launches several calls for projects with external funding for which researchers apply in compliance with the set requirements. Funding is awarded for periods of 12 to 36 months of execution.

Research Projects

According to ^{UNMSM (2016}), research projects aim to contribute and transform scientific knowledge that foster the development and benefit of society; such projects aim to be recognized nationally and internationally through the publication of papers in indexed journals, theses, among others, to allow for research based on theoretical and quality contributions and experiences.

Research projects are intended to contribute to an academic level of high performance and impact on society. Research should reach the entire student community via papers, books or theses, to continue further knowledge, always striving for quality to differentiate itself from other institutions.

Executing Body

The ^{Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas - MEF (n.d.}) explains that the executing body is directly responsible for the execution and administration of funds, regarding revenues and expenditures, in accordance with the regulations and procedures of the National Treasury System. According to ^{Innóvate Perú (2014}), the executing body is responsible for the management, administration and financial execution and closure of the project.

Both institutions agree that the executing body is responsible for the management, administration and execution of the funds, revenues, and expenditures, under the regulations and procedures of the National Treasury System. Failure to execute the funds would affect the executing body and would results in possible reprimands, as well as restrictions on the execution of the funds, which would result in non-compliance.

Financial Management of Projects

^{Fabrés (2010}) states that financial management of projects consists of determining the economic and human resources required to execute a project; in addition, operating costs including monitoring and control of revenues and expenses must be calculated as the proejct is executed, to detect possible deviations and make decisions that do not affect and/or damage the financial execution of such projects.

The author emphazises the importance of financial management, especially of operating costs for the monitoring and control of revenues and the value of the people who will execute and control the execution of the project, as is done in this research study.

Execution of Public Expenditure

According to Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos - ^{UNMSM (2018}), the execution of public expenditure involves the collection and inflow of resources, and it used within the tax period. On the other hand, for ^{Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas - MEF (n.d.}), it is a process aimed at meeting all expenditure obligations to finance goods and services to achieve the expected results according to the authorized budget appropriations through the institutional budgets, taking into account the Programming of Annual Commitments (PCA, for its Spanish acronym), based on the principle of legality and budget balance, and all the regulations and principles of each public entity.

The purpose of both institutions is to manage resources through financial execution within the tax year, in accordance with the regulations in force in each institution. Also, both aim to obtain the expected results, as is the case of the projects where the budgetary resources are executed within the specified period and comply with the regulation of the executing and funding body.

Descriptive Analysis

The data collected in the pretest and posttest are shown in Table 1 (days).

The corresponding descriptive statistics are shown in Table 2.

Figure 1 shows the box-and-whisker plot of values obtained in the pretest and posttest.

Source: Prepared by the author

Figure 1 Box-and-Whisker Plot of the RR Issuance Time. 

As shown in Table 2, there is a significant difference between the means and medians of the pretest and posttest moments. This result is further supported in Figure 1, where it is observed that the box and whiskers corresponding to the posttest are significant lower than those if the pretest.

Data normality was analyzed using the Shapiro Wilk test, yielding the following results:

H₀: Data follow a normal distribution.

H₁: Data do not follow a normal distribution.

α: 0.05

Shapiro-Wilk for pretest

W = 0.91345, p-value = 0.2678

Shapiro-Wilk for posttest

W = 0.86316, p-value = 0.06326

The null (H₀) hypothesis is accepted in both cases, indicating that the data follow a normal distribution; therefore, the data are parametric.

Inferential Analysis

It was found in the previous section that the data are parametric; therefore, the hypothesis test used was the Student’s t-test, applied to non-related samples, for which the equality or inequality of variances were tested using the F test. The statistical hypothesis pertaining to the test of variances, as well as the results, are detailed below.

H₀: Variances are equal

H₁: Variances are not equal

α: 0.05

The results were as follows:

F test to compare two variances

F = 2.9301, num df = 10, denom df = 10, p-value = 0.1049

alternative hypothesis: true ratio of variances is not equal to 1

95 percent confidence interval:

0.7883321 10.8904468

The p-value is greater than the type I error probability α. The null hypothesis (H₀) is accepted; therefore, variances are equal.

The following is the contrast of hypotheses performed using Student’s t-test for equal variances, for which the statistical hypotheses are stated.

H₀: u₁= u₂

H₁: u₁> u₂

α: 0.05

The results of the test were as follows:

Two Sample t-test

data: pre and post

t = 6.9826, df = 20, p-value = 4.456e-07

alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is greater than 0

95 percent confidence interval:

18.75651 Inf

sample estimates:

mean of x mean of y

42.18182 17.27273

Similar to the previous case, the p-value is lower than the type I error probability α; therefore, the null hypothesis (H₀) is rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H₁) is accepted. Hence, it can be stated that there is evidence in favor of the result obtained in the posttest being lower than that of the pretest, that is, a significant reduction in time as a result of the implementation of the independent variable or stimulus.

Method Applied

Initially, during the pretest, for the issuance of the Dean’s Resolution (RR) of an agreement and/or contract, the funding organization submitted it (or them) duly signed by both parties to the submissions desk of the Vice Dean’s Office of Research and Graduate Studies (VRIP). Subsequently, the agreement and/or contract passed along to the Secretariat and were sent to the Vice Dean’s Office through an internal route for the respective signature. Once signed, the document(s) would return by the same route and be sent to the Dirección de Prospectiva y Gestión de la Investigación y Posgrado [Directorate of Prospective and Management of Research and Graduate Studies] (DPGIP), which would issue the document requesting the issuance of the RR for the wining project and the signature of the Vice Dean. On average, the waiting time for the document to be returned was three (3) days; thereafter, the corresponding area was in charge of managing the document and the RR was issued after an average of 42 days.

Based on the above, the delay in the issuance of the RR led to discomfort on the part of researchers and a series of delays regarding the execution of the project and the submission of deliverables to the funding source within the established deadlines. As a result, a number of meetings were held with the Dean, as well as meetings with the main actors involved in the issuance of Dean’s Resolutions. It was agreed that all documentation related to the externally funded projects had to be stamped VERY URGENT EXTERNAL PROJECTS. Thus, it was possible to reduce many steps from the VRIP. All agreements and/or contracts are forwarded directly to the DPGIP for the drafting of the documents, which are signed by the Vice Dean and processed by the corresponding areas within one day. This practice makes it possible to obtain the RRs in an average of 17 days, thus achieving good results in the execution of the project and the submission of deliverables to the funding sources as part as the posttest.