Receipt date: 13/01/2022 / Revision date: 08/03/2022 / Acceptance date: 25/04/2022

Introduction

In the course of history, a number of social and economic organizations have emerged, created with the aim of responding to the needs of certain groups in society, which due to their specificities do not belong to the public or private capitalist sectors in which economic entities are traditionally classified, giving rise to the residual field known as the "third sector". The third sector has gaps that have not yet been filled, since it is presented with two approaches: the first is the European social economy, of French origin, which identifies the non-profit sector. The second approach, called Anglo-Saxon, conceives the nonprofit sector as equivalent to the third sector, thus identifying it with nonprofit entities characterized by the application of the principle of non-distribution of benefits, including both entities (Ruíz, 2001).

The Non-Profit Entities, NPEs, also known as social economies, third sector, solidarity economy, participatory economy, among others, also known as social economies, third sector, solidarity economy, participatory economy, among others. They consider NLEs as a sub-sector of the economy, where their main characteristic, compared to companies and public entities, is related to the primacy of man and the social purpose over capital. Its main services are not intended for exchange through price and satisfy its target audience, which is found in different fields of action, such as: rural development, culture, education, health, adults, children, among others (Radrigan and Peniglalia, 2012).

In the legal and administrative sphere, NLEs differ from for-profit entities, EL, as those whose purpose is different, generally of a social nature, since they do not respond to administrative hierarchies subject to the law (Raffino, 2020). Many organizations, whether EL or ENL of companies or institutions, where tasks/activities are often confused with projects, due to the fact that both have similar characteristics: they are executed by people, they are limited by time and resources, they require planning, to be executed, supervised and controlled in order to achieve specific objectives and the success or failure of the organization depends on the focus of the results. The main difference lies in the fact that projects are temporary and have a defined end, while activities/tasks are continuous and repetitive and sustain the organization over time, produce goods and services, and do not end when they reach their objectives. (Lledó and Rivarola, 2007; Gardilcic, 2016). According to their nature there are multiple types of projects, but in this case we will only address the classification of projects according to their nature or the entity that promotes them, these can be: public or social and private (Meza, 2010).

Projects in ENL non-profit organizations consist of 3 phases: formulation, implementation and evaluation. The formulation and evaluation of projects in these entities have standardized models that are applied, resulting in projects that are very well formulated and in line with the reality in which they operate. However, the execution phase has very dispersed, non-standardized and difficult to apply instruments, which affect project performance. Project management boasts an abundant literature in relation to the application of instruments generated in for-profit companies (Siles, Mondelo, 2018). On the other hand, this is not the case for NPOs due to their essential characteristic, that of not producing monetary surpluses, which makes their performance difficult since they cannot be evaluated with objective criteria, as is the case of for-profit entities. Along with this, there are the purposes that NLEs follow, which are difficult to quantify, which makes it necessary to look for new ways to propose planning practices for project execution in order to improve performance. 

The current importance of non-profit entities is due to the role of the actors both inside and outside the institutions, who demand clarity and effectiveness in the management to improve their performance; since it is clear that the success of these entities is given by the success in their planning processes for the execution of their actions, satisfying the demands of their target population (Navas, Breijo, 2020).

Some nonprofit entities will incorporate practices in the formulation and implementation of planning mechanisms to improve their performance. Although these practices have been beneficial, they have not been analyzed in detail to know their degree of diffusion and use, since the studies reach a very incipient level, despite the fact that in the business field they are giving good results (Mason, 2020).

The management approach in general, and planning in particular, is an aspect that is being addressed by two disciplines, economics and sociology. However, none of this knowledge has satisfied all the demands for information that needs to be systematized and despite their socioeconomic relevance in the nonprofit field there is insufficient consistency in data processing and inventory of these entities, at the same time, an incipient qualitative research and identification of facts is observed, especially in matters of management of the execution of activities (Helming, Jegers and Lapsley, 2004; Radrigan, Dávila and Penaglia, 2012).

The execution or implementation of projects in NLEs has very little relation with existing research in the environment, thus, there is a fragmentation of knowledge (Mason 2020). The use of project execution instruments in public institutions is a recurring requirement, but this does not ensure the success of their performance, so it is necessary to take into account other aspects such as: the intrinsic nature of these entities, the importance of human resources and the knowledge of the different actors and their roles (Andalaf. 2006). The planning of project implementation was based on instruments such as participatory observation, in-depth interviews, surveys and the review of the current legal framework, and its results were aimed at projects of a public nature, thus breaking down a methodological proposal with its corresponding instruments, aimed at projects for undeveloped countries (Da-Fonseca, Hernández-Nariño, Medina-León, Nogueira-Rivera, 2014). 

As can be seen, the efforts for the use of planning instruments in NLEs have been continuous, however, there are still pending issues such as the effectiveness in their performance, which opens the doors to a range of future research (Moreno, Carrillo, Roldán, Parrado 2018), aimed at achieving an improvement in the management of project execution, a key aspect of performance (Mason, 2020). From this aspect of analysis, a key element to take into account will be the different actors that have a transcendental role in the management of this type of organizations (Aragoneses, 2017), this emphasizes the importance of strategic planning of human resources as another tool that enables the improvement in the overall performance of NLEs (Guo, Brown, Ashcraft, Yashioca, 2011).

Research on the studies carried out in non-profit entities show that they are very incipient with respect to the execution phase of projects, making it difficult to contribute to their performance. Therefore, due to the absence of instruments and practices, the market and the dynamics are analyzed to facilitate the performance of activities for the benefit of the population involved in the projects. At the same time, management improvement is sought to be implemented with the identification of tools, techniques and methods within the business sector or adapted to the characteristics of the non-profit sector (Leguizamón, Castillo, 2011).

This work identified the instruments used for project execution planning in NLEs, specifically the instruments for Scope, Time and Costs, as well as the impact on the performance of the projects, by proposing a model that rescued the best practices from the world of NLEs and at the same time identified practices from the business world that can be adapted to a greater or lesser degree.

Method

Results

For the empirical verification of the stated objective, several questions were asked, such as:Which phase do you consider the most important of the project? The answer to this question gave a glimpse of which phase of the project is given the greatest importance by the NPOs and was considered the one to which they dedicate the most time and resources; in this case the most important phase was project formulation, where approximately half of the nonprofit entities (48%) assign it as a priority, this is due to the requirement of the cooperation entities, since they ensure the target groups and that the project is viable. It was also possible to observe that only one third of the NLA budget is allocated to the project implementation phase (28%) and 24% to the evaluation phase, which was the least prioritized in terms of importance, despite the fact that it is a tool for verifying the achievement of objectives and scopes and, at the same time, proposes adjustment and correction mechanisms for future actions. 

When asked the question " Why do nonprofit organizations assign greater importance to the Formulation phase?they stated that it is because at this stage of project generation, problems and needs are identified that give the projects their raison d'être, and that the entities that prioritize project evaluation consider that this phase is the one that allows for feedback and allows for correcting deviations and errors. While the entities that opted to give greater allocation to Execution argued that this phase embodies the reality of the project, it also ensures its successful implementation. See Figure 1.

In response to the question "What instruments are used for planning the implementation of the Scope, the NLA, it was observed, as shown in Figure 2, that of the 4 instruments proposed (Analysis of Alternatives, Needs Matrix, Logical Framework and Programmatic Matrix), all four instruments were usedlogical Framework and Programmatic Matrix), priority is given to the logical framework, where -absolutely all of them- considered it to be the best known instrument in the NLAs and the cooperation entities. Unfortunately, they are not used to their true potential, because the entities only apply them in the project identification and formulation phase, and not for execution.

Now, consultingWhat instruments are used to a greater extent for the chronogram, it was identified that the use of the instruments specified above shows aspects related to the use in the NLEs. Of the instruments known by the LNAs, although to varying degrees, the one most commonly used is the logical framework (100%), which is not a specific instrument for planning the execution of activities, since it does not allow sequencing, establishing milestones, defining total and partial times for the project as a whole. On the other hand, although GANTT is known by some of the NLEs (20% of them), it is not used by any of them, which corroborates the lack of knowledge of its true potential. Similarly for instruments such as CPM and PERT are not used and are not taken into account for their applicability, since they would allow an optimal improvement in the execution planning for the project, thus ensuring time efficiency to achieve success in the projects, see Figure 3.

With respect to the question "Which instruments are used to a greater extent for costs", it was found that the budget instrument is the one most used for planning the execution of project costs in the NLEs (this is shown in Figure 4). Cost estimates as a tool are not used in any of the cases studied. Therefore, it can be deduced that budgets are not prepared efficiently by the NLA, since the second instrument is a necessary complement to the planning of cost execution in the project. This cost situation that has been presented, is one of the concerns when referring to the complementation not only of cost techniques, but also the interrelation with other processes such as time and scope of the project (Siles, Mondelo, 2018).

For the question"How does the degree of use of instruments for project scoping affectthe degree of use of instruments for project scoping", it was observed that the causes of the degree of use of instruments for project scoping have little effect on the performance of projects in the NLEs (68%). Despite the fact that several instruments are not used for scoping, the Logical Framework is still the most used, it is very complete and adequate for this type of organizations, it was also observed that the degree of use of instruments for scoping affects the performance of a third of the NLS (32%) since they state that it is important to diversify the use of instruments for this process or phase (see Figure 5.).

Figure 6. showshow the degree of use of planning instruments for the project schedule affects the degree of use of planning instruments for the project schedule, as the planning of the execution of schedules is related to the activities and times of the project in the NLSs that use the Logical Framework to a greater extent; however, despite the importance of this technique, it is not exclusive, nor is it adequate for the planning of the schedule. With the application of this tool, non-governmental entities only list activities directed according to objectives, they do not have logical sequences, nor the establishment of fundamental milestones to optimize project times. The exclusive and reduced use of scheduling instruments affects project performance to a regular extent for more than half of the NLS (56%), while almost the other 44% stated that they affect project performance to a greater extent. This means that the NLEs do not have the necessary instruments to optimize project times, compromising the degree of project efficiency.

Figure 7 shows how NFEs are affected in their performance through the question"How does the degree of use of instruments for planning the execution of costs affectthe quality and quantity, process of the costs of the instruments for planning the execution on the performance of the NFEs", it is observed that 64% are regularly affected, while more than one third (36%) indicate that if the costs are not adequately managed, they will directly affect the performance.

To find out which instruments used by private companies with the PMBOCK approach can be used or adapted in the NBS, technicians were consulted on the basis of the diagnosis and real capacities, which make it possible to use and adapt the dynamics of nongovernmental entities to improve their performance. The technicians identified that the instruments can be used and adapted to their dynamics, among them are: Analysis of Alternatives, Needs Matrix, Programmatic Matrix, Logical Framework (specific to the NLAs), Budgets, Quotation Tables, Supplier Selection, Hierarchical Diagrams, Expert Judgment, Responsibility Matrix, which are 100% used and adapted without problems in the non-governmental entities. While instruments such as Market Research, Estimation by Analogy, Parametric Estimation, Estimation by Alternatives, can only be used and adapted without problem in 36% of the non-profit entities.

It was also observed that instruments such as: PERT, CPM, GANTT, are usable and adaptable, only for 28% of the NLEs, where almost 2/3 of them manifest themselves as instruments that are strictly quantitative and do not take into account the qualitative aspects in the processes implemented by the nonprofit organizations. Also, it could be determined that the Cost Estimation instrument, can be used and adapted without problems in 40% of the NLEs (see Figure 8.), these results give support to those found in the results as mentioned in the literature (Siles and Mondelo, 2018).

Figure 9 below shows the instruments that are inserted in the proposed model. These adapted instruments are for both the business sector and the NLA, which rescues and adapts good practices that complement their application in the planning of project execution, thus improving efficiency, effectiveness and performance impact in the NLA.

For the Scope instrument, the Logical Framework in the NLA followsa cause-effect or means-ends "logic" to relate all the elements of an intervention. This methodology covers 3 areas: the analysis of the context of the intervention, the ordering and structuring of ideas and the presentation of the project in a clear and standardized way as shown in Figure 10.

In order to know the EP Programmatic Structure, the project team starts the breakdown of the activities starting from the central objective of the project up to the level of the Lines of Action. It is a structure that facilitates the order of the different levels in the PD: 1) Project objective: the central objective of the project to be achieved. 2) Components: the set of products grouped according to their nature. 3) Action lines: the groups of activities or tasks that are performed to achieve the project's outputs; it is the lowest level of the WBS. Figure 11 shows a diagram of the hierarchical ordering of PD.

As an extension of the PD , a scorecard was generated that incorporates the assignment of staff responsibilities, directly linked to the objectives of the components and lines of action as shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Scorecard

Equipo	Componente 1							Componente 1			Componente n
	L1	L2	L3	L4	L5	L6	Ln	L1	L2	Ln	L1	L2	L3	L4	L5	Ln
Personal 1	A2	A2	A2			A2		A1	A2	A2		R	R	A1	A1
Personal 2	R	R		A2	R			R			A1	A2	A2			A1
Personal n		A2					A2	A2	A1						A2
R: Responsable	Ln: Líneas de acción							Ln: Líneas de acción			Ln: Líneas de acción
A1: Apoyo Primario
A2: Apoyo Secundario

The instrument for the determination of the Time (Chronogram) or Critical Path Diagram PERT, CPM was defined starting from the beginning to the end of the project and took more time compared to other routes this presents spaces or slack between activities, which means that any delay in any of the activities could affect the route resulting in a delay of the project as shown in Figure 12, which has a network of a project with four routes.

The Gantt chart shows the expected duration of the different activities over the total project time. This method is frequently used to represent the project schedule since its graphic presentation favors its comprehension; basically, the diagram is composed of a vertical axis, in which the activities that constitute the work to be executed are established, and a horizontal axis that is shown in the form of a calendar and the duration of each one of them. The activities are presented in the form of a bar or line showing the start and end, the groups of activities related to each other and the dependencies between them as shown in Figure 13.

An important part is the project schedule (Table 2) whose technique is very similar to Gantt, but is intimately connected with the Programmatic Framework and the Logical Framework, which relate the times, activities, objectives and persons responsible for the project and is widely used by ENL.

Table 2

Correlation table, knowledge and use

Código	Componentes y actividades	Indicadores de actividad	Responsable	Calendario en meses
				1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
C.1.
C.1.1.

Once the project schedule was established, we proceeded to establish the Cost instrument, the process consisted in generating a cost curve, first the financial resources of the project were organized to complete and achieve the objectives within the approved budget, then the cost processes were analyzed and the cost use curve was determined, which contains: a cost estimate, the budget analysis and the creation of a baseline, in which the correct cost estimate consisted of assigning a cost or value to each of the activities necessary to produce a result and was represented by the S curve that represents the uses of resources as a function of time, the graph means as the beginning of the project, the low expenditures, then the increase and finally a reduced measure of the completion of the project, as exemplified in Figure 14.

To generate the instrument for Costs and Times , Earned Value Management was used, which allows controlling the execution of a project through instruments such as scope, schedule and costs, thus enabling the simple measurement of project performance based on the planning. It is essential that the evaluation and control instruments be applied jointly with the cost, as well as the execution of the activities, which avoids the limitations of other techniques that are being analyzed in a partial manner, without having an overall view. Earned value management compares planned work with what has actually been completed to determine whether costs, times and tasks performed are being met as stipulated. The use of earned value management relies on project data to compare planned and completed work at a given point in time. The result is a measure that indicates the progress to date and estimates the remaining time and budget to complete the project. Figure 15 shows the relationship between the different elements of earned value management obtained from the technique: the Actual Cost (AC/Actual Cost), the Planned Value (PV/Planned Value), and the Earned Value (EV/Earned Value).

Discussion and conclusions

Discussion

In direct relation to the research objective, it was noted that the NLAs do not give greater importance to the project execution phase, while the formulation and evaluation phases are given greater priority. This causes these types of organizations to fail to develop and use tools for performance management, especially those related to Scope, Time and Costs. Another cause to highlight is that, of the 3 standard processes in Project Execution Planning, which have been taken into account in this work (Scope, Time and Costs), only the Scope is prioritized, which is closely related to the nature of these organizations because it comes from the donated funds, does not induce a cost/benefit analysis, and for this reason, it is not given greater importance to the instruments to rationalize the use of resources to achieve the objectives.

The instruments used for the Scope, Time and Costs processes are very limited, sometimes only one instrument is used, when there is an average availability of at least 6 instruments per process, or even when an instrument is used, it is used partially without using its true potential. The effects caused by the degree of use of the instruments are differentiated on the one hand for Scope, and on the other hand for Time and Costs. This may be due to the fact that the NLAs define their objectives, areas and populations in the project formulation phase, which is the best known and most experienced phase, having little impact (68%) on the performance of the entities interviewed.

On the other hand, the effect on performance in relation to Time and Costs is important (regular) and very important (very important). The low use of instruments for project execution causes the effect on performance to be between important and very important, between 56% and 44% for time and 64% and 36% for costs, which affects performance in an important and very important way, respectively. Of the 18 instruments found for performance management proposed in the study and mostly rescued from the business world, 10 of them can be adapted without problems for 100% of the non-governmental entities; 4 of the instruments can be adapted for 36% of the NLA; and the instruments from the business world can be adapted for only 28% of these entities, this means that a greater effort would be required to adapt the instruments, as well as more training for those in charge of implementing them. Finally, the instruments for the improvement of project execution based on Scope, Time and Costs were rescued and adapted, so that the NLEs have the standardized model proposed as a minimum to improve their performance. This model represents an initial proposal that can be analyzed, modified and is subject to continuous improvement.

Conclusions

The instruments of the project execution phase for ENL that are currently used by non-profit entities are within the processes of: Scope, Time and Costs, these instruments have adverse effects on the performance of the projects, since their use is very restricted and limited. Of the 18 tools found for performance management, which were mostly developed and rescued from the business world, 10 of them were adapted without any problems 100% for non-governmental entities; 4 of them for 36% of the NLAs, while the business world's own tools can only be adapted for 28% of them. In general, it was possible to identify, based on the results, that the NLAs do not have a functional structure that facilitates the formulation and implementation of projects because decisions are made at high levels, which sometimes lack experience in evaluation, making it difficult to apply the tools, delaying the procurement and attraction of resources through projects. Finally, the instruments for the improvement of project execution based on Scope, Time and Costs were rescued and adapted, so that the NLEs have the standardized model proposed as a minimum to improve their performance. This model represents an initial proposal that can be analyzed, modified and is subject to continuous improvement.

References

Aragoneses, J. M. (2017). An approach to transparent and integrated information in Not-for-Profit Organizations. Transparency and Integrity International Journal, 4, 1-8.

Da-Fonseca, J.P., Hernández, A., Medina, A., & Nogueira, D. (2014). Methodological conception of Management Control of social investment projects in Angola. Industrial Engineering, 35(3), 322-332. 

Etecé. E.E. (2020). Non-profit and for-profit organizations. Concept. 

Gardilcic, M. (2016), Preparation, evaluation, social and implementation of public investment projects. Tupac Katari.

Helming, B., Jegers, M., & Lapsley, I. (2004). Challenges in Managing Nonprofit Organizations: A Research Overview. International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University.

Leguizamon, F. A., & del Castillo, E. (2011). Management in the public company. INCAE Business Review, 2 (3), 44.

Lledó, P. & Rivarola, G. (2007). Project Management. Prentice Hall - Pearson Education.

Mason, D. (2020). Diversity and inclusion practices in nonprofit associations: A resource dependent and institutional analysis. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 6(1), 22-43. https://doi.org/10.20899/jpna.(6);1 

Moreno, L.M., Carrillo, R., Roldán, M.I. & Parrado, P. (2018). An approach to management control in non-profit organizations. AECA 

Radrigán, M., Dávila, A.M., & Penaglia, F. (2012). Management and leadership in social entrepreneurship. Polis, 32, 141-165. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-65682012000200009 

Rodríguez, P. M., & Breijo, V.R. (2020). Transparency of non-profit entities: criteria, evaluation methodology and results. Sociedade e Cultura, 23, 1-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.5216/sec.v23.e51247. 

Ruiz Olabuénaga, J.I. (2001) El sector no lucrativo en España. CIRIEC-Spain, Journal of Public, Social and Cooperative Economics, 37, 51-78. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=17403704 

Saldías, J.R. & Chacur, A.A. (2006). Systems Of Control of Gestion, Analysis for Organizations without End of Gain. Industrial Engineering Journal, 5(1), 61-76. 

Siles, R. & Mondelo, E. (2018). Management of development projects. Project Management Associate (PMA) Certification.

Guo, S., Brown, W., Ashcraft, R., & Yoshioca, C. (2011). Strategic Human Resources Management in Nonprofit Organizations. Article in Review of Public Personnel Administration, 31, 248-259.