Implementación Del Modelo De Gestión Para Resultados Y Su Relación Con El Desempeño Institucional En La Administración Pública De Honduras, En El Período 2020.

Abstract

A study was carried out whose purpose was to analyze the implementation of the Management Model for Results and its relationship with institutional performance in the Public Administration of Honduras, in the period 2020, for this, a non-experimental and correlationalndesign was applied, in In which nine institutions participated that formed a pilot plan for the implementation of the management for results of the Honduran public sector, likewise, the Management Planning and Evaluation Units (UPEG) were taken as the unit of analysis, since these are the in charge of carrying out and coordinating planning in the institution. In compiling the information, the questionnaire with Likert scale-type measurement was used as an instrument for the variable management for results, which was made up of the dimensions: planning for results, budget for results, public financial management, management of programs and projects , monitoring and evaluation, where it was established that the surveyed institutions reached an average of 130.11, which is within the 125-150 range, that is, an advanced level; Likewise, the institutional performance variable had the effectiveness, efficiency, economy and quality of service dimensions, reaching an average of 67.44, which is located within the rango 64-80, presenting a high level. Using as a reference the results obtained from the SPSS statistical program and the Pearson correlation scale (-0.044), the null hypothesis of the study was accepted, that is, that there is no direct relationship between the implementation of the Management Model for Results and performance in the 9 institutions of the Public Administration of Honduras that were part of the study, at least with the results obtained up to the first quarter of 2020, this because the variables in general presented high levels of design and execution; However, in the analysis of the dimensions of each variable, weaknesses were observed that end up being important when obtaining the results of each institution, for example, in the Program and Project Management dimension, the evaluation of projects prior to approval, lack of socialization of the portfolio of goods and services provided by the sector, meanwhile, in the Monitoring and Evaluation dimension, the information and monitoring systems managed by the institutions are weak, as well as the lack of criteria and established procedures for scheduling evaluations and analyzing results.