The evaluation of project management practices in the Czech social enterprises

Figures & data

Table 1. Use of project management practices by annual turnover, number of employees and support from European Union funds.

	All or most of the activities managed with project management tools (%)	Project management tools used only exceptionally (%)	No use of project management tools (%)
<750,000 CZK	42.9	52.4	4.8
>750,000 CZK	37.5	40.0	22.5
1–10 employees	36.4	42.4	21.2
>10 employees	42.9	46.4	10.7
With E.U. grant support	37.8	46.0	16.2
Without E.U. grant support	41.7	41.7	16.7

Source: authors.

Table 2. Project organisation by annual turnover, number of employees and support from European Union funds.

	One person appointed as project manager (%)	Project team (%)	People allocated to projects according to the specific needs of the project (%)
<750,000 CZK	30.0	15.0	55.0
>750,000 CZK	26.7	16.7	56.7
1–10 employees	28.0	12.0	60.0
>10 employees	28.0	20.0	52.0
With E.U. grant support	29.0	9.7	61.3
Without E.U. grant support	26.3	26.3	47.4

Source: authors.

Table 3. Use of project management tools by annual turnover, number of employees and support from European Union funds.

	Project budget (%)	Traditional economic evaluation (%)	S.W.O.T./ P.E.S.T.L.E. (%)	Opportunity and feasibility study (%)	C.B.A. (%)	Hierarchical resource structure (%)	W.B.S. (%)	Matrix/register of stakeholders (%)	Three dimensions (%)	C.P.M. (%)
<750,000 CZK	27.4	21.0	21.0	21.0	1.6	0.0	0.0	4.8	1.6	1.6
>750,000 CZK	30.2	19.8	16.3	15.1	8.1	3.5	1.2	2.3	0.0	3.5
1–10 employees	27.7	21.5	20.0	21.5	3.1	1.5	0.0	1.5	1.5	1.5
>10 employees	30.1	19.3	16.9	14.5	7.2	2.4	1.2	4.8	0.0	3.6
With E.U. grant support	28.4	22.7	17.0	17.0	5.7	1.1	1.1	3.4	1.1	2.3
Without E.U. grant support	30.0	16.7	20.0	18.3	5.0	3.3	0.0	3.3	0.0	3.3

Source: authors. S.W.O.T., strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threat; P.E.S.T.L.E., political, economic, socio-cultural and technological, legal and environmental; C.B.A., cost–benefit analysis; W.B.A., work breakdown structure; C.P.M., critical path method.

Table 4. Use of tools for project evaluation by annual turnover, number of employees and support from European Union funds.

	C.B.A. (%)	Financial indicators (I.R.R., N.P.V.) (%)	Lessons learned (%)	E.V.M. (%)	S.R.O.I. (%)	None (%)
<750,000 CZK	48.0	20.0	24.0	4.0	0.0	4.0
>750,000 CZK	31.7	26.8	22.0	9.8	0.0	9.8
1–10 employees	42.4	18.2	27.3	3.0	0.0	9.1
>10 employees	33.3	30.3	18.2	12.1	0.0	6.1
With E.U. grant support	39.5	21.1	21.1	7.9	0.0	10.5
Without E.U. grant support	35.7	28.6	25.0	7.1	0.0	3.6

Source: authors. C.B.A., cost–benefit analysis; I.R.R., internal rate of return; N.P.V., net present value; E.V.M., earned value management S.R.O.I., social return on investment.

Table 5. Use of project management practises by annual turnover, number of employees and support from European Union funds.

	Use of project management practices			χ^2	p-value
	All or most of the activities managed with project management tools	Project management tools used only exceptionally	No use of project management tools
<750,000 CZK	9 (8.26) [0.07]	11 (9.30) [0.31]	1 (3.44) [1.73]	3.2203	.199856
>750,000 CZK	15 (15.74) [0.03]	16 (17.70) [0.16]	9 (6.56) [0.91]
1–10 employees	12 (12.98) [0.07]	14 (14.61) [0.03]	7 (5.41) [0.47]	1.2355	.539156
>10 employees	12 (11.02) [0.09]	13 (12.30) [0.03]	3 (4.59) [0.55]
With E.U. grant support	14 (14.56) [0.02]	17 (16.38) [0.02]	6 (6.07) [0.00]	0.1163	.943522
Without E.U. grant support	10 (9.44) [0.03]	10 (10.62) [0.04]	4 (3.93) [0.00]

Source: authors. Observed frequency, (), expected frequency, [ ], cell contribution to the overal chi-square statistic.

Table 6. Project organisation by annual turnover, number of employees and support from European Union funds.

	Project organisation*			χ^2	p-value
	One person appointed as project manager	Project team	People allocated to projects according to specific needs of the project
<750,000 CZK	6 (5.60) [0.03]	3 (3.20) [0.01]	11 (11.20) [0.00]	0.0744	.963481
>750,000 CZK	8 (8.40) [0.02]	5 (4.80) [0.01]	17 (16.80) [0.00]
1–10 employees	7 (7.00) [0.00]	3 (4.00) [0.25]	15 (14.00) [0.07]	0.6429	.725112
>10 employees	7 (7.00) [0.00]	5 (4.00) [0.25]	13 (14.00) [0.07]
With E.U. grant support	9 (8.68) [0.01]	3 (4.96) [0.77]	19 (17.36) [0.15]	2.477	.289825
Without E.U. grant support	5 (5.32) [0.02]	5 (3.04) [1.26]	9 (10.64) [0.25]

Source: authors. Observed frequency, (), expected frequency, [ ], cell contribution to the overall chi-square statistic. ^*The limitations lie with the small number of respondents due to the small number of social enterprises registered in the database. Because of this, the condition that at most 20 of the theoretical frequencies may be less than 5 is not fulfilled. The condition that no theoretical frequency must be less than 1 is satisfied.