International Conference on Project Management 2024 1 Proposal for the Creation of a Project Office (PO) in the Company Sistema Monolítico Estructural Ltda Andrés Marín Cuellar 1, Gabriel Ángel Gutiérrez Mendoza 2, Mara Luz Rangel Imitola 3, Dr. César Rincón- González4. 1. Advisor to the Standards Center of the National Police of Colombia. Bogotá, Colombia; andres.marin1528@gmail.com; ORCID 0000- 0002-0076-5615. 2. Costs and Budgets Professional. Bogotá, Colombia; ing.gabriel.gutierrez.m@gmail.com; ORCID 0009-0009-2157-3864 3. Director of the Graduate Office San Martin University Headquarters Puerto Colombia; mrangel85362@universidadean.edu.co; ORCID 0009-0008-9562-3604 4. Director of Project Management Department – Ean University; crincon2.d@universidadean.edu.co ; ORCID https://orcid.org/0000- 0003-1443-0012 Abstract: For years, organizations have invested in achieving operational excellence through continuous improvement, focusing on enhancing processes and procedures, often through the implementation of project management models and methodologies, including Project Offices (POs). This work proposes the implementation of a PO in the organization named SEM. Initially, conceptual frameworks are presented as a basis for understanding the context surrounding POs. Subsequently, the maturity of the organization under study was assessed through a methodological design that employed a mixed approach and a descriptive scope. Primary (professional) and secondary (documentary) sources were consulted, employing qualitative (questionnaire) and quantitative (documentary matrix) techniques, considering variables related to minimum knowledge and minimum processes (activities) in project management. The results revealed that SEM is an organization in an embryonic state in terms of both process maturity, which is rated as medium-low, and knowledge and practices in project management, which are at a common language level. This indicates that while the organization possesses some aspects of project management, it lacks a clear path or mechanisms for its development towards future maturity. This analysis allowed for the proposal of an initial basic PO model and action axes for its implementation within the organization, as well as suggestions for future research directions. Keywords: Implementation; Methodologies; Project management; Project Office; Standard. Propuesta para la Creación de una Oficina de Proyectos (PO) en la Empresa Sistema Monolítico Estructural Ltda Resumen: Durante años, las organizaciones han invertido en lograr la excelencia operativa a través de la mejora continua, centrándose en mejorar los procesos y procedimientos, a menudo mediante la implementación de modelos y metodologías de gestión de proyectos, incluidas las Oficinas de Proyectos (PO). Este trabajo propone la implementación de una PO en la organización denominada SEM. Inicialmente, se presentan marcos conceptuales como base para comprender el contexto que rodea a las OP. Posteriormente, se evaluó la madurez de la organización objeto de estudio mediante un diseño metodológico que empleó un enfoque mixto y un alcance descriptivo. Se consultaron fuentes primarias (profesionales) y secundarias (documentales), empleando técnicas cualitativas (cuestionario) y cuantitativas (matriz documental), International Conference on Project Management 2024 2 considerando variables relacionadas con conocimientos mínimos y procesos mínimos (actividades) en la gestión de proyectos. Los resultados revelaron que SEM es una organización en estado embrionario tanto en términos de madurez de procesos, que se califica como media-baja, como de conocimientos y prácticas en gestión de proyectos, que se encuentran en un nivel de lenguaje común. Esto indica que, si bien la organización posee algunos aspectos de la gestión de proyectos, carece de un camino claro o de mecanismos para su desarrollo hacia la madurez futura. Este análisis permitió proponer un modelo básico inicial de OP y ejes de acción para su implementación dentro de la organización, así como sugerencias para futuras líneas de investigación. Palabras clave: Estándar; Gestión de proyectos; Implementación; Metodologías; Oficina de Proyectos. Introduction Project management has become an essential practice for organizations in their pursuit of achieving strategic objectives [1]. Its deployment has addressed aspects related to establishing methodologies that enable proper management, facilitating alignment with organizational strategy. A significant element integrated into these processes is the Project Office (PO), which standardizes governance processes and facilitates the exchange of resources, methodologies, tools, and techniques [2], providing support to managers in project management [3]. The importance of the PO in governance is highlighted by its role as a key factor in prioritizing, selecting, and evaluating projects, strategic alignment [3], bidirectional functioning [4], and its role in supervision, control, and support through best practices, enhancing management in terms of schedule, cost, quality, risk, and other facets [5]. However, implementing a PO generates uncertainty due to its challenges in organizational articulation and acceptance; although its implementation may be complex, a well-designed PO can contribute to business success. The challenges of implementing a PO are numerous, especially in project-based organizations (PBOs), where proper management depends on successfully executed projects [6]. One of the most representative sectors in this regard in Colombia is the construction sector, which faces significant challenges in effective management. Some companies engaged in this activity, such as Monolithic Structural System Limited (SEM), which is the subject of this research, despite having quality standards and consolidated practices through a Quality Management System (QMS), have made significant investments in operational excellence in recent years. Although all their projects have concluded successfully, failures related to process management elements have been identified: misalignment of strategy and absence of methodological capabilities, among others, affecting the scope, schedules, and costs of their projects. In response to this situation, this study proposes the implementation of a PO to improve project management at SEM, through the alignment of its strategy and methodological strengthening. In this regard, Rad (2001) points out that more and more organizations are opting to establish a PO to support and streamline their project management efforts [7]. Proposing the implementation of a PO involves a process of understanding what a project office is and its typologies, and how through these methodologies are developed, addressing and articulating organizational processes, in response to the lack of alignment with strategy [6]. Sometimes it is perceived that the PO was created solely to provide personal support to the project manager, fulfilling some of their functions, in response to their need to carry out their tasks [8]; this can be argued due to the multiple definitions and associated elements that can be framed in two broad types of understanding: 1). Organizational and 2). Functional [6,9]. International Conference on Project Management 2024 3 In the first case, the PO can be considered as: a structure that generates products or services through projects [1], from the perspective of Aubry, Hobbs, Müller, and Blomquist (2010), a dynamic organizational structure that is part of the organization and interacts with it to solve specific organizational problems [9], according to Kerzner (2003), a form of organization within an organization [11], for Parchami and Matin (2015), a structure that standardizes activities and acts as a knowledge repository [12]. Other authors project it as a functional element, framing it in a system that ensures that simultaneous projects are executed correctly [13], for Müller (2009), it is an institutionalization of governance strategies [1], Desouza and Evaristo (2006) see it as an exercise to customize and maintain methods and techniques in organizations [6], it is also conceived as a tool for implementing organizational strategy through portfolios, programs, and projects [14], or in some cases a guide to standards and practices for project management [15]; each of these aspects arises because sometimes it may not be clear whether an entity - in this case a PO - that deals with the management of multiple projects is part of the permanent organization or not [16]. In general, the existing definitions of POs for the most part emphasize their connection as another component in organizations, becoming part of the organizational structure of the modern enterprise and assuming a role in responding to current challenges in project management [17]. However, just as there is ambiguity about what a PO is, this phenomenon also applies to typologies, given the importance of the PO in project management and strategic alignment [6]. Some writers have proposed typologies for the PO based on variables such as activities [18], roles [19], hierarchy, organizational purpose, activity scope, and functional form [20], or also taking the number of projects and managers under its control as Hobbs and Aubry have considered [21]. Because of this, many writers have sought to codify this typology, with a purely documentary scope rather than field, as is the case with authors such as Monteiro, Santos, and Varajão (2016) and Fernandes, Sousa, Tereso, and O’Sullivan (2021) in their works Project Management Office Models - a review and Role of the Project Management Office in University Research Centres (respectively), who have conducted a literature review that has identified 47 PO models within many texts; concluding that, in relation to POs, the structures, roles, functions, and descriptions vary considerably from one source to another, as well as their position within a hierarchical organization (strategic, tacit, or operational), allowing them to assume a degree of authority and autonomy in it. It is important to clarify that the authors also recognize the development carried out in writings generated by two great exponents Harold Kerzner in his work Project Management a Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling and Gerard Hill in his work The Complete Project Management Office Handbook; who have allowed an evolution in the deep understanding of PO typologies and their implementation, making them a reference for processes where the incorporation of a PO is necessary. Ultimately, proposing the implementation of a PO in a PBO, as an improvement response in these types of organizations, leads to a generalized question of: How can the implementation of a PO for improving project management be carried out in a PBO like SEM? General Objective Develop a proposal for the implementation of a PO that allows for the improvement of project management in the continuous pursuit of value creation and sustainability in the organization SEM. Specific Objectives: International Conference on Project Management 2024 4 • To establish in the literature the necessary theoretical references that allow proposing a PO model in line with the strategic alignment of the company SEM. • To conduct a situational analysis of the company SEM, allowing for an understanding of the current state of maturity regarding project management. • To formulate a PO model aligned with the strategic planning of the company SEM. • To develop an implementation plan for the designed PO model for the company SEM. Methodology The development of research has involved academics and students proposing methodological approaches based on the identification of aspects that guide the researcher and their deployment [22, 23, 24, 25]. In response to this, authors such as Hernández and Mendoza have become a reference for the methodological design in these types of processes, as they have also been for the present study (see Fig. 1) Figure 1. Methodological design. Source: [25] Under this methodological rigor, the present research initially considered a mixed approach, intertwining qualitative and quantitative aspects, in an interaction that provides a holistic view of the study phenomenon [25], where the qualitative aspect established the level of maturity in project management, and the quantitative aspect defined fundamental aspects in the effective delivery of projects based on their processes. The scope outlined was descriptive, which is based on specifying the properties and characteristics of the phenomenon under analysis [25], allowing to determine SEM's maturity level in project management. Regarding the population, two types were defined given the variables identified: projects (as a secondary source located in the organization's repository) and personnel (as a primary source in managerial, administrative, and operational positions). The sample was established using the simple random sampling formula for finite populations, as detailed below: Table 1. Calculation using the simple random sampling. Personnel sample calculation Project sample calculation 10∗1,96²∗0,5² 0,05²∗ (10−1) +1,96²∗0,5² n=9,77 Where: N=10 18∗1,96²∗0,5² 0,05²∗ (18−1) +1,96²∗0,5² n=17,24 Where: N=18 International Conference on Project Management 2024 5 Zα= 1.96 (with a confidence level of 95%) σ = standard deviation (0.5) e = error 0.05 Zα= 1.96 (with a confidence level of 95%) σ = standard deviation (0.5) e = error 0.05 *Organization members sample: 9.77 (10), projects sample: 17.24 (18). Source: Authors Given the proposed mixed approach, two research instruments were devised. The first, with a qualitative focus, consisted of a questionnaire comprising a total of 183 closed-ended questions, segmented into 5 sub-variables and applicable to primary sources. For the quantitative approach, a document review matrix was devised, comprising a total of 8 sub-variables and applicable to secondary sources. Table 2. Theoretical Framework for Study Variables Study Variables Study Sub variables Documentary Resource Minimum knowledge and characteristics regarding project management processes in a PO of an organization. Common language [26] Common processes Unique methodology Comparative evaluation Continuous improvement. Group of minimum related activities for the effective delivery of project results Stakeholders [27] Team Development approach and lifecycle Planning Project work Delivery Metrics Uncertainty Source: Authors The proposed instruments underwent two types of validations. The first involved a pilot test with two projects and two professionals from the organization. The second validation consisted of feedback from three project management experts with knowledge and experience in project management offices. To fulfill the objectives of the proposed study, four developmental phases were outlined: preparatory phase (consolidation of theoretical references and design and validation of instruments), fieldwork phase (engagement with the organization), analytical phase (situational analysis of the organization using maturity models and performance domains), and informative phase (formulation of the PO model, implementation plan, and final report). Results Considering the proposed methodological design, an organizational diagnosis was developed in two stages: initially, statistical processing related to variables 1 and 2 (refer to tables 3 and 4 respectively), followed by an analysis of results that included statistical interpretation complemented by considerations from documentary resources and researchers. Table 3. Results variable 1 level 1 common language Kerzner maturity model Results level 1 common language in management areas ID Scope Time Costs Human Resources Procurement Quality Risks Communications Total 1 70 30 30 60 50 50 50 70 410 International Conference on Project Management 2024 6 2 70 20 50 60 50 50 20 10 330 3 70 40 30 40 30 60 40 70 380 4 60 30 40 0 40 30 60 70 330 5 60 20 10 10 30 10 10 30 180 6 30 40 30 40 80 30 60 50 360 7 30 80 50 30 30 30 10 30 290 8 40 30 40 20 50 40 50 50 320 9 50 20 20 60 60 20 50 40 320 10 30 30 50 30 30 50 40 40 300 Sample Mean 51 34 35 35 45 37 39 46 322 Maximum 70 80 50 60 80 60 60 70 410 Minimum 30 20 10 0 30 10 10 10 180 Sample Variance (s2) 298,89 315,56 183,33 450,00 272,22 245,56 365,56 404,44 3817,78 Standard Deviation (s) 17,29 17,76 13,54 21,21 16,50 15,67 19,12 20,11 61,79 Median 55 30 35 35 45 35 45 45 325 Mode 70 30 30 60 30 50 50 70 330 Source: Authors Taking Kerzner's criteria for progress as a reference, the results for level 1 (common language) indicate that in the areas of time management, costs, acquisitions, and quality (ranging from 30 to 51), there is an average level of maturity. However, in the areas of scope, human resources, risk, and communications (ranging from 10 to 30), the maturity level is low, demonstrating variability in performance in each area. This variation, reflected in the scores, suggests a moderate level of competence but also highlights a lack of knowledge and experience in project management, especially among mid-level (administrative and operational) staff. It's noteworthy that the highest scores are achieved only by top-level executives, indicating the need for specialized training in the intermediate groups of the organization. Regarding the performance domains proposed by the Project Management Institute, the results show a narrower range (see table 4). Table 4. Performance domains results Performance domains analysis results Id Stakeholders Team Development approach and lifecycle Planning Project work Delivery Measure ment Uncertainty Total 1 5 1 2 11 8 3 4 4 38 2 5 1 2 11 8 3 4 4 38 3 1 1 2 8 8 3 3 3 29 4 3 5 2 14 12 5 6 6 53 5 3 5 2 14 12 5 6 6 53 6 3 1 2 8 10 5 6 6 41 7 3 1 2 8 10 5 6 6 41 8 3 1 2 8 10 5 6 6 41 9 6 6 6 15 12 7 6 6 64 10 3 1 2 8 10 5 6 6 41 11 6 6 6 15 12 7 6 6 64 12 3 1 2 13 8 3 4 4 38 13 3 1 2 13 8 3 4 4 38 14 3 1 2 13 8 3 4 4 38 15 3 5 2 14 12 5 6 6 53 16 3 5 2 14 12 5 6 6 53 17 3 1 2 13 8 3 4 4 38 18 3 1 2 13 8 3 4 4 38 Sample Mean 3,44 2,44 2,44 11,83 9,77 4,33 5,05 5,05 44,38 Maximum 6 6 6 15 12 7 6 6 64 Minimum 1 1 2 8 8 3 3 3 29 Sample Variance (s2) 1,56 4,50 1,67 7,09 3,24 1,88 1,23 1,23 96,13 Standard Deviation (s) 1,25 2,12 1,29 2,66 1,80 1,37 1,11 1,11 9,80 Median 3 1 2 13 10 5 6 6 41 International Conference on Project Management 2024 7 Mode 3 1 2 8 8 3 6 6 38 % Weighted average applied 57% 41% 31% 74% 54% 43% 51% 42% Source: Authors After analyzing the results of the performance domains, distinct patterns and characteristics emerge. The maximum and minimum scores reveal an intermediate level in the domains of planning and project work, with variations (maximums between 15 and 12, and minimums between 1 and 3) observed in the other domains. This is confirmed by the sample mean, which indicates a medium to low representation in the domains of stakeholders, team, development approach, project lifecycle, delivery, measurement, and uncertainty, with scores ranging from 2 to 5. These results suggest a relatively low to medium level of development in the organizational processes associated with domains with minimum scores. Figure 2. Network diagram of level 1 results in common language Figure 3. Network diagram of performance domains results. Source: Authors. Source: Authors. In summary, based on the diagnosis derived from variable 1, the organization lacks sufficient knowledge criteria in project management (level 1 common language) to progress towards level 2 (common processes), indicating an embryonic state. However, according to Kerzner's level overlay concept, there is synergy between levels 1 and 2, facilitating a seamless integration of training plans, processes, and applicable methodologies in project management. This allows the organization to gradually incorporate the processes and methodologies established at level 2 as it progresses in project management training. On the other hand, concerning variable 2, it can be summarized that SEM organization, scoring between 2 and 5, is at a medium-low level. Despite having good practices based on its Quality Management System (QMS), it lacks inherent aspects of project management in its processes. This deficiency hinders the deployment and alignment between the processes defined in its management system and the deployment methods based on its team's competencies. Conclusions The multiplicity of Project Offices (POs) and their typologies—according to documentary references consulted in this research process—allowed us to evidence that there is no clear conceptual and methodological basis regarding what type of PO can be implemented in an organization and how it should be articulated as a structure or as a functional element. This aspect, combined with the absence of specific competencies within the professional team, leads to a flawed perception when considering a PO as a response to project management issues within an organization. International Conference on Project Management 2024 8 Regarding the situational analysis of SEM as an organization, in terms of maturity level, it is situated at the common language level, as project management is sporadically implemented as sole support to top management. Although there are small areas of interest in project management, the benefits are not recognized since they rely on the power of the manager and individual decision-making. On the other hand, concerning the performance domain at a medium-low level—which is evidenced in the development of project management practices in its processes—there is an absence of a standard that allows operationalizing specific actions, managing best practices in the field, and its organizational articulation. This indicates that the organization possesses aspects of project management but lacks a development path when implementing these processes, concluding that for SEM, a PO serves as an articulating organ between a project standard, its quality management system, aligning its functional model with strategy and customer needs. Furthermore, establishing SEM's maturity played a bidirectional role in identifying the best PO option for the organization since it provided two important aspects for selection: the first one, due to the organization's current state in both knowledge and processes associated with project management, allowed us to understand its needs. The second one, focused on understanding how these needs related to and articulated with different PO typologies. This condition allowed proposing that: 1) For SEM, the PO required a location as an element of its organic structure—being part of its organizational chart—, 2) Its scope aligning with its Quality Management System—in process development—, and 3) Its role framed in administrative-level functions. Since SEM is in a state of embryonic maturity level (basic) with processes associated with medium-low performance, Gerard Hill's PO model, which describes a 5-level PO—among these the level 1 "basic"—integrating the structural (component of evolution by competence levels) and the functional (actions that consolidate maturity and growth), was identified as a PO proposal. The implementation of a PO in SEM becomes a process based on methodological and staggered rigor. For this, considering the evaluations of SEM's organizational, functional, and strategic characteristics, as well as the competencies of its human talent, four management axes can be considered: 1) Strategic alignment with its Quality Management System, 2) Articulation with the logical structure based on project delivery, team structure, resources, communication, schedule, budget, and metrics, 3) Operational Management seeking integration through joint diagnostic processes, monitoring reports, and measurement of overall performance, and 4) Change Management aiming to generate stakeholder consolidation and validation of implementation through educational and awareness-raising processes that allow visualization of benefits and opportunities of the PO project. Finally, as a contribution to knowledge management, it can be concluded that it is necessary to foster continuity in the research line focused on understanding the conceptualization of what a PO is and its typologies. Likewise, the development of research aimed at implementing POs in organizations with already consolidated management systems, analyzing and evaluating the feasibility of establishing a methodological articulation route, good practices, successes, and failures in such processes. References [1] S. Pemsel y A. Wiewiora, Project management office a knowledge broker in project-based organisations, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 31 (1), pp. 31-42, 2012. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.03.004. [2] G. Hill, The Complete Project Management Office Handbook, Second Edition, Third Edition, ESI International Project Management Series, 2022. ISBN: 978-1032340241 International Conference on Project Management 2024 9 [3] P. Weaver, Effective project governance-a cultural sea change¸ paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2005—Asia Pacific, Singapore. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute, 2005. Disponible en: https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/effective-project-governance-cultural-sea-change-7594. [4] A. Ñustes-Barrera, J. Martinez-Cruz y L. Acuña-Acuña, Contribución de las PMO a la Gerencia de Proyectos en las Organizaciones: Referentes Teóricos y Aplicaciones. Bogotá: Revista Investigación en Desarrollo y Gerencia Integral de Proyectos, vol. 1(1), pp. 28–52, 2018. https://doi.org/10.46659/26191830.v1.n1.2018.3 [5] Project Management Institute, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge - PMBOK® Guide – Seventh Edition, Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute, 2021. ISBN: 978-1-62825-679-6. [6] A. Monteiro, V. Santos y J. Varajão, Project Management Office Models – a review. Procedia Computer Science, vol. 100, pp. 1085–1094, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.09.254. [7] P. Rad, Is your organization a candidate for project management office (PMO)? AACE International Transactions, pp. 71- 74, 2001. Disponible en: https://www.proquest.com/openview/e7c124d6ebc99c115a06b323a1eeb551/1?pq- origsite=gscholar&cbl=27161. [8] Q. Fleming y J. Koppelman, Project teams: The role of the project office, AACE International Transactions, pp. 157-160, 1997. Disponible en: https://www.proquest.com/openview/284f1b5ea87a4e24541e9f20a0fbbe69/1?pq- origsite=gscholar&cbl=27161. [9] G. Fernandes, H. Sousa, A. Tereso y D. O’ Sullivan, Role of the project management office in University Research Centres. Sustainability, vol. 13, p. 12284, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su132112284. [10] C. Bredillet, S. Tywoniak, y M. Tootoonchy, Why and how do project management offices change? A structural analysis approach, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 36 (5), pp. 744-761, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.04.001. [11] M. Ershadi, P. Davis, M. Jefferies y M. Mojtahedi, Comparative Analysis of PMO Functions between the Public and Private Sectors: Survey of High-Performing Construction Organizations. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 147 (11), 2021. DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002181. [12] M. Saleh-Almansoori, I. Abdul-Rahman, A. Hameed-Memon y N. Ngah Nasaruddin, Structural Relationship of Factors Affecting PMO Implementation in the Construction Industry, Civil Engineering Journal, vol. 7 (12), pp. 2109-2118, 2021. DOI: 10.28991/cej-2021-03091781. [13] V. Obradović, Project Management Office in the Public Sector: A Conceptual Roadmap, European Project Management Journal, vol. 12(2), pp. 63-70, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56889/ghxu9566. [14] G. Silvius, The role of the Project Management Office in. CENTERIS - International Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems / ProjMAN, Computer Science vol. 181, pp. 1066-1076, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.01.302. [15] M. Aubry, Project Management Office Transformations: Direct and Moderating Effects That Enhance Performance and Maturity, Project Management Journal, vol. 46(5), pp. 19-45, 2015. DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21522. [16] D. Sierra, ¿Por qué implementar un PMO dentro de una organización y cuáles son sus características?, Revista Digital CITAS, vol. 3(1), pp. 31-38, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15332/24224529.5145. [17] H. Kerzner, Strategic Planning for a Project Office, Project Management Journal, vol. 34(2), pp. 13-25, 2003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280303400203. [18] B. Hobbs y M. Aubry, A multi-phase research program investigating project management offices (PMOs): the results of phase 1, Project Management Journal, vol. 38 (1), pp. 74–86, 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280303400203. International Conference on Project Management 2024 10 [19] B. Hobbs, M. Aubry, y D. Thuillier, The project management office as an organisational innovation, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 26 (5), pp. 547–555, 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.05.008 [20] S. Paton y B. Andrew, The role of the Project Management Office (PMO) in product lifecycle management: A case study in the defence industry, International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 208, PP. 43-52, (2019). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.11.002 [21] C. Bernal-Torres, Metodología de la investigación, Ciudad de México: Pearson Educación, (2022). ISSN: 978-607-32-5597- 4. [22] H. Ñaupas-Paitán, M. Valdivia-Dueñas, J. Palacios-Vilela & H. Romero-Delgado, Metodología de la investigación cuantitativa-cualitativa y redacción de la tesis. Bogotá, D.C.: Ediciones de la U, (2018). ISBN: 978-958-762-876-0. [23] A. Ortiz-Ocaña, Enfoques y Métodos de investigación en las ciencias sociales y humanas. Bogotá, D.C.: Ediciones de la U, (2015). ISBN 978-958-762-399-4. [24] R. Hernández-Sampieri, C. Mendoza-Torres, Metodología de la investigación, Ciudad de México: McGraw-Hill Interamericana, (2023). ISBN: 9789587566895 [25] H. Kerzner, Using the project management madurity model - strategic planning for project management. Third Edition. Jhon Wiley & Sons, 2019. ISBN:9781119559078. [26] N. Piza.Burgos, F. Amaiquema Marquez, y G. Beltrán-Baquerizo, Métodos y técnicas en la investigación cualitativa. Algunas precisiones necesarias, vol. 15 (70), pp. 455-459, 2019. Disponible en: