Strategic planning and governance in public procurement at a decentralized university in Peru

Abstract

Introduction:

The study analyzes the relationship between strategic planning and governance in public procurement at a decentralized public university in Peru, considering its implications for efficiency, transparency, and regulatory compliance.

Methods:

A mixed descriptive-correlational approach was applied using a non-experimental cross-sectional design, evaluating 152 university employees using a validated questionnaire (α > 0.71) and a review of normative documents.

Results:

The findings reveal a predominance of simplified awarding procedures (2019-2024) and a high incidence rate in the preparatory stage, identified as the main operational bottleneck, resulting in economic damages of up to 2,982,623.50 PEN and average delays of 71.6 days. The Regulatory Alignment Index (55%) indicates gaps with international standards. A significant positive correlation was found between governance and planning (ρ = 0.566; p < 0.01), with moderate explanatory power (R² = 0.3295).

Discussion:

These results suggest that, despite acceptable operational performance, structural weaknesses persist in governance and strategic planning. The identified gaps highlight the need to incorporate sustainability, life-cycle approaches, and project management methodologies. An adaptive model integrating public value, efficiency, transparency, and sustainability is proposed to strengthen governance and align university procurement with global best practices.

1 Introduction

Efficiency, transparency, and regulatory compliance in public procurement are essential pillars for the sustainability and legitimacy of university management. In decentralized public universities defined as autonomous state institutions with administrative and financial independence located in regional areas outside the central capital, such as those in the regions of Peru, these principles face challenges, such as those in the regions of Peru, these principles face challenges associated with structural limitations, geographical dispersion, and regulatory gaps (Ibrahim and Al-Matari, 2022). Strategic planning and institutional governance are key to aligning resources with public value objectives, integrating operational efficiency and accountability mechanisms (O’Flynn, 2021; Adams et al., 2003).

The literature indicates that well-designed strategic planning—supported by diagnostics, indicators, and continuous monitoring—improves the quality of procurement and institutional capacity (Mebrate and Shumet, 2024). For its part, university governance, based on frameworks such as New Public Management and Public Value Theory, offers structures and processes that strengthen transparency and citizen control (Hood, 1995). However, in the Peruvian context, the adoption of these frameworks does not always translate into practical improvements due to the limited implementation of standards such as ISO 9001, ISO 20400, and PMBOK (Orfanidou et al., 2023), or specialized frameworks like the Contract Management Standard (CMS), which establishes the universally accepted life cycle of procurement phases: pre-award, award, and post-award (National Contract Management Association [NCMA], 2023). In this context, the central question arises: How do strategic planning and governance influence the improvement of public procurement in a decentralized Peruvian university? The overall objective is to propose guidelines for optimizing efficiency, transparency, and regulatory compliance, based on a diagnosis of current processes (OMC, 2010). The specific objectives are: (1) to diagnose current strategic planning, (2) to identify gaps in relation to international governance standards, (3) to analyze the perception of civil servants, and (4) to evaluate operational efficiency (Nonato et al., 2024), in public procurement using empirical indicators of time, cost, and compliance (Zarrin and Brunner, 2023).

This study contributes to both theory and practice. It integrates multidimensional perspectives that combine public value, sustainability, efficiency, and multilevel governance (Ammar et al., 2023). Methodologically, it uses a mixed approach with normative analysis, document review, and validated surveys, complemented by the calculation of indicators such as the Institutional Efficiency Index (IEI) and the Transparency Index (T) (Adam et al., 2024). The results serve to redesign processes, reduce bottlenecks, and propose an adaptive model that can be replicated in universities with similar structural conditions (Croucher, 2024).

1.1 Theoretical foundations

Polycentric governance emerges as an alternative to centralized models, recognizing that effective management in complex scenarios requires multiple decision-making nodes. This approach brings together state, private, and social actors, operating through formal rules and informal influences. The result is a flexible regulatory system that balances different types of power, promoting collaborative solutions beyond the exclusive authority of the state (Midttun, 2021).

At the same time, the expansion of data technologies has transformed the governance environment. Decision-making is being redistributed to digital platforms and algorithms, creating transnational and decentralized spaces of control—so-called “datascapes.” In these contexts, authority is exercised not only by the state but also by technical infrastructures with their own regulatory capacity, which requires rethinking the frameworks of legitimacy, oversight, and participation in digital terms (De Siqueira and Ramalho, 2024).

This study incorporates an expanded theory of polycentric governance, which is ideal for underpinning collaborative state-society-market models. Furthermore, it introduces an emerging approach to digital and algorithmic governance, ideal for contexts involving disruptive technologies or decentralized systems.

Strategic planning is an applied scientific component, oriented toward the design of organizational scenarios with defined objectives. It involves a rigorous analysis of the institutional situation, the definition of deadlines, the formulation of performance indicators, the allocation of resources, and the establishment of periodic feedback mechanisms (Mintzberg, 1994; Arend et al., 2017). Figure 1 illustrates this process, structured in stages that include organizational diagnosis, setting deadlines, formulating performance indicators, tactical implementation, and operational execution with ongoing monitoring and adjustments (Adams et al., 2003; Bryson et al., 2018). This approach, supported by theoretical frameworks such as Porter’s five forces and ISO 9001 and ISO 37000 standards, allows strategic objectives to be articulated with concrete actions aimed at efficiency and transparency in public procurement management. In the context of this research, the strategic planning variable is operationalized through indicators related to the clarity of goals, coherence between functional units, resource allocation, and continuous evaluation of results, all of which are essential elements for strengthening institutional governance and generating sustainable public value (Roh et al., 2021).

Figure 1

Figure 2 summarizes the theoretical integration and original contribution of the study, articulating key conceptual frameworks for analyzing strategic planning in university procurement. These perspectives converge to highlight the theoretical gap in the joint application of these approaches to the context of decentralized public universities. Based on this integration, the study develops an empirical case that provides: (a) a multidimensional theoretical integration, (b) empirical correlational evidence, (c) a model of operational gaps, and (d) applied technical protocols, thus contributing to strengthening the understanding and efficient and transparent management of public procurement in university environments with structural limitations. Figure 1 shows the details of the theories.

Figure 2

The New Public Management (NPM) theory proposes the incorporation of private sector management approaches into public institutions, with the aim of improving efficiency, transparency, and service quality (Hood, 1995). This approach is based on results-based management, administrative decentralization, and continuous evaluation of institutional performance (Gruening, 2001). Several authors warn that its implementation can generate structurally negative effects, such as organizational fragmentation and loss of institutional cohesion, compromising essential democratic values (Diefenbach, 2009).

This article provides empirical evidence from a decentralized public university in Huancavelica, Peru, considering factors such as technological barriers in regions with limited infrastructure (Lozano and Bardales, 2024), the importance of access to information and accountability (Public Value and Governance) (El Kezazy et al., 2024), and the need for a multi-actor approach that articulates the state, university, and society to strengthen legitimacy in decision-making (Ammar et al., 2023).

Social representation theory relates to the ideas of “efficiency” and “transparency,” which are not only defined technically (by standards, indicators, or platforms) but also become social constructs shared among officials, citizens, the media, and auditors. These representations can be hegemonic (e.g., the ideal of merit-based and competitive hiring), emancipated (local or institutional perceptions that reconfigure standards), or controversial (controversies over cases of corruption or arbitrariness) (Nonato et al., 2024).

The adaptation of the arithmetic mean model proposed by Carl Friedrich Gauss as a tool for measuring transparency in the institutional sphere, and revised by Wittmann (2020). The global transparency index equation is as follows:

Where: Ti: transparency, n: number of items evaluated.

A high T value (>1) indicates that the institution: Publishes its Request for Tenders (RFTs) and award notices promptly, reduces incidents in processes, encourages citizen participation, and uses digital platforms effectively. A low T (<0.50) reflects weaknesses in one or more of these components.

In the Peruvian context, given the manifest inequalities between locations and limited citizen oversight, the collaborative approach to transparency proposed by Moore (1995) and taken up again by Douglas and Meijer (2016) offers a strategic way to reduce the risks of patronage, transform platforms such as Pladicop into interactive spaces beyond mere dissemination, and strengthen institutional legitimacy by generating trust and active participation of the university community in the management of public resources.

For a decision unit, technical efficiency is calculated using the model of Charnes, Cooper, and Rhodes, 1978, revisited by Zarrin and Brunner (2023).

Where:

• IEI: institutional efficiency index

• x₁: Operational efficiency of the service

• x₂: Procedural quality and regulatory compliance

• x₃: Citizen satisfaction and perception

• x₄: Operating budget (in soles)

• x₅: Cumulative operating time (in weeks)

• x₆: Assigned human resources (HR)

The weighting coefficients used for each variable in calculating the Institutional Efficiency Index (IEI), considering the complete allocation of weights based on Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with standardized data: α = 0.40, β = 0.30, γ = 0.30, δ = 0.45, ε = 0.35, ζ = 0.20.

However, the implementation of continuous control mechanisms such as internal audits, comparative evaluation between units, and the application of sanctions for regulatory non-compliance, in accordance with the Peruvian State Procurement Law (Alibekova et al., 2021), although necessary to mitigate management risks, do not in themselves guarantee a substantive improvement in the efficiency of university public management.

In this regard, the Theory of Auditability (Power, 1996) suggests that strategic planning must transform procurement activities into traceable tracks to ensure transparency. Complementarily, recent developments in the Theory of Auditing Economics (Ye, 2023) emphasize that the efficiency of these control mechanisms depends on reducing information asymmetry and aligning institutional incentives. Together, these perspectives imply that university procurement is not only a matter of compliance but a structural design for institutional trust. Public Value Theory posits that public management should focus on generating tangible benefits for the university community, based on political legitimacy and execution capacity, and guided by democratic values, rather than being limited to operational efficiencies (O’Flynn, 2021).

In the context of procurement, Agency Theory explains how the relationship between the principal (buyer) and the agent (seller) involves conflicting objectives and information asymmetry. To reduce agency costs, the institution must implement control mechanisms to address adverse selection during the pre-award phase and moral hazard during the post-award phase, ensuring that the agent aligns with the institution’s interests (Egbon, 2024).

Recently, Peru enacted Law No. 32069, a new Public Procurement Law designed to modernize the state’s contracting system. This regulation introduces key concepts such as ‘Value for Money,’ institutional integrity, and a greater emphasis on strategic planning. By moving away from a strictly bureaucratic process, Law No. 32069 seeks to align national practices with international standards, providing a timely legal backdrop for analyzing the current inefficiencies in decentralized public universities.

1.2 State of the art

1.2.1 Empirical governance (efficiency and transparency)

University governance relies on mechanisms such as governing boards, audit committees, internal control, and external oversight, which strengthen institutional transparency and legitimacy, improve financial reporting, and reduce operational risks (Ibrahim and Al-Matari, 2022). Proper implementation optimizes decision-making and public resource management.

In countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom, governance models have shifted toward commercialized, performance-oriented approaches, replacing schemes based on trust and moral responsibility with others focused on external oversight and compensation linked to quantitative indicators (Boden and Rowlands, 2022), prioritizing managerial efficiency over academic commitment.

In an integrative manner, governance articulates academic, administrative, and strategic processes through solid organizational structures, clear regulatory frameworks, and collaborative relationships. This approach is structured around five axes: regulations, management guidance, stakeholder participation, transparency and accountability, and institutional autonomy (Veltri et al., 2022). Its balance is essential to ensure university quality.

Recent evidence shows that the effectiveness of strategic decisions depends on the maturity of governance systems, the articulation of interests, deliberative dialogue, and consensus. In this sense, adaptive and non-bureaucratic models are key to dealing with complex, results-oriented environments (Hidayah et al., 2023).

Likewise, studies such as that by Solovova and Sukhankina (2020) show that efficiency in educational management depends on organizational competencies such as strategic planning and adaptability, which reinforces the need to train public managers with these skills to optimize contractual processes. Complementarily, an empirical analysis in Serbia (Israel, 2025) shows that efficiency and transparency in public procurement are strengthened by technical training, the use of electronic platforms, regulatory consistency, and institutional control systems, lessons that can be extrapolated to universities in decentralized regions.

The theoretical integration in Figure 3 provides a robust framework for analyzing university public procurement planning from multiple angles.

Figure 3

Ethics is recognized as an essential component of sustainable public procurement, although its practical application faces obstacles stemming from paradigm shifts and historical tensions. One of the most persistent limitations is insufficient specialized training, which hinders the incorporation of sustainable approaches into complex administrative systems (Mendonça et al., 2021). In the area of transparency (Brandsma and Meijer, 2022) analyzed 244 legislative processes in the European Union and concluded that greater openness does not necessarily increase decision-making times, challenging the traditional perception that transparency and efficiency are incompatible in multi-stakeholder environments. From another perspective, Karikari Appiah et al. (2023) highlight that robust internal audits strengthen institutional resilience, promote transparency, and optimize efficiency in procurement through proper planning and control. Along the same lines, Murun et al. (2023) show that the combination of transparency and continuous monitoring is a decisive factor for the sustainability of public procurement, as it promotes accountability, limits discretion, and reinforces trust in institutions.

Transparency in higher education is considered a pillar for strengthening institutional legitimacy and university governance. Curaj et al. (2018) argues that, through mechanisms such as accreditations, rankings, and performance contracts, it is possible to improve the quality of decision-making, reinforce accountability, and consolidate social trust in universities. In the Spanish case (Ramírez and Montero, 2024) analyzed digital transparency in higher education institutions, identifying factors that facilitate or hinder access to and clarity of information published online. At the European level, Pattaro et al. (2022) showed that universities in the Netherlands, Portugal, and Italy face growing pressure to increase accountability and ensure transparent disclosure of their academic, research, and social outreach results.

Finally, transparency in university public procurement processes is recognized as an essential factor in consolidating institutional legitimacy. Improving data accessibility and ensuring open publication promote informed public debate, prevent corruption, and encourage the adoption of digital oversight and accountability mechanisms as an integral part of contract planning (Soylu et al., 2022).

International experiences in Australia, the United Kingdom, Russia, and Serbia show that efficiency and transparency depend on technical capabilities, clear regulatory frameworks, electronic platforms, and accountability. In other words, decentralized universities must adopt adaptive, non-bureaucratic models with institutional ethics to address complex challenges and pressure for results, integrating specialized training and good practices in public procurement.

1.2.2 Strategic planning

Regarding the impact on institutional performance (Mebrate and Shumet, 2024) showed that planning and staff competence improve organizational performance, especially in universities. They recommend adopting continuous training standards and predictive management tools.

Similarly, Changalima and Mdee (2023) demonstrated that planning mediates the relationship between staff capabilities and hiring success. Their results emphasize that training in contract management is key to improving budget execution and reducing the risk of non-compliance.

Regarding participation (Kretschmer and Dehm, 2021) designed a participatory procurement model at a German university, involving students and suppliers in the creation of sustainable menus. This case demonstrated that the inclusion of local actors improves the social relevance of procurement.

Adoption in South Africa (Maepa et al., 2023) identified six readiness factors (technological, financial, etc.) for the adoption of electronic procurement in South Africa. Their quantitative approach with Stata emphasized the need for evidence-based planning. And critical factors (Ragin-Skorecka and Hadaś, 2024) identified three satisfaction factors (support, intuitiveness, security) and two dissatisfaction factors in e-procurement. Their quantitative study with PCA underscored the role of intuitive design and technical support for successful adoption.

On the acquisition of unreliable materials in libraries (Dragaš et al., 2022) examined the complexity of evaluating non-fiction materials, highlighting the lack of standardized criteria. Their theoretical analysis proposed systematic methods to overcome gaps in public procurement. And on green procurement and profitability (Orfanidou et al., 2023) they evaluated the implementation of environmental criteria in Greece, highlighting that their successful adoption requires market research and inter-institutional coordination. Green procurement, although complex, can be profitable under clear regulatory frameworks.

Regarding tools for quarry planning (Pavesi et al., 2021) they developed a Planning Support System (PSS) for quarries in Brescia (Italy), demonstrating its usefulness for public decisions based on geographic and environmental data. As BIM technology in public procurement (Popov et al., 2021) suggested that the implementation of Building Information Modeling (BIM) requires standardized documents (EIR, BEP). Through expert interviews and comparative analysis, they highlighted the urgency of national guidelines to adapt ISO standards.

In sustainability in electro-electronic procurement (da Silva and da Conceição, 2024) they evaluated federal institutes in northern Brazil, finding low adoption of sustainable criteria in electro-electronic procurement. Their documentary analysis urged improvement in procurement plans.

Strategic planning and staff training strengthen institutional performance and procurement. Local participation increases the social relevance of procurement, while evidence-based planning improves electronic procurement. Tools such as BIM and support systems optimize processes, and sustainable criteria ensure efficiency and environmental responsibility. In the Peruvian context, Figure 4 shows the sequence and process of the Annual Procurement Plan (APP), which allows for budget adjustments and rescheduling of goals, as in the case of the National University of Huancavelica (UNH). This instrument includes: contractual object, estimated value, source of financing, method and type of procedure, and date of call for bids.

Figure 4

To reinforce transparency and operational efficiency, the Supervisory Agency for State Procurement (OSCE) implemented digital mechanisms such as Pladicop, which measure the Procurement Administrative Lead Time (PALT)—defined as the time between the receipt of the request by the Procurement Authority (OEC) and the contract award. These tools strengthen institutional traceabilityThese tools strengthen institutional traceability, detect bottlenecks, and optimize resource allocation, thereby consolidating public governance.

2 Materials and methods

Figure 5 shows the ordered sequence of methods used to achieve the research objectives of the case.

Figure 5

2.1 Type of research

The study is applied in nature, aimed at solving specific university management problems through document review and analysis of perceptions and practices related to strategic planning and its impact on institutional efficiency and transparency.

2.2 Approach and level

A mixed approach was adopted: quantitative for the statistical analysis of empirical data and qualitative for the interpretation of meanings and normative contexts. The level is descriptive-correlational, as it describes perceptions of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and OECD guidelines and examines the relationship between strategic planning and institutional performance.

2.3 Design

A non-experimental cross-sectional design was used, without manipulation of variables and with data collection at a single point in time.

2.4 Population and sample

The population consisted of 250 university employees. The sample, calculated for finite populations (Z = 1.96; error = 5%), included 152 participants, selected through stratified probability sampling. Functional roles defined the strata: (i) Administrative units, responsible for budget management and formalizing the procurement process; (ii) Technical units, focused on drafting technical specifications and terms of reference; (iii) Academic units, which act as end users and make requests for teaching and research purposes; and (iv) Other security and cleaning staff. Participants were selected based on their direct involvement in the procurement life cycle, including requirement definition and contract execution.

2.5 Instrument and sources

A 23-item questionnaire on a 5-point Likert scale was used (1: Strongly disagree, 2: Disagree, 3: Neutral, 4: Agree, 5: Strongly agree), with content validity by three experts and reliability (α > 0.71). It was complemented by a document review: semantic search engines, official portals (MEF, OSCE, CGR, SEACE), and institutional documents (PEI, APP, audits).

2.6 Variables

Independent: strategic planning measured via needs diagnosis, APP alignment, budget execution, and monitoring). Dependent: efficiency/transparency (assessed through regulatory compliance, PALT timeliness, internal control, and institutional legitimacy.

2.7 Processing and analysis

SPSS v31, Excel, and Matlab were used. Descriptive analysis (means, deviations) and Spearman’s correlation analysis, suitable for ordinal data, were applied.

2.8 Interpretation and validation

This study employed a methodological triangulation approach to ensure the robustness and validity of the findings. This involved contrasting three primary data sources: (i) quantitative empirical data from civil servant perceptions, (ii) documentary data from specific control reports by the Comptroller General of the Republic (CGR) and technical studies from OSCE, and (iii) international normative frameworks. The selection of international benchmarks, specifically OECD guidelines, ISO 20400 (Sustainable Procurement), ISO 9001 (Quality Management), and ISO 37001 (Anti-bribery), is justified by their central role in the current modernization of Peru’s public management and its strategic path toward OECD accession. These standards provide a universally recognized baseline for identifying regulatory and operational gaps. Additionally, an empirical-comparative analysis and five-year non-linear projections were conducted to formulate strategic recommendations. Finally, it is acknowledged that the specific geographical, socioeconomic, and institutional constraints of the Huancavelica region may limit the direct generalizability of these findings to all decentralized universities, although the proposed adaptive model is designed for broader replication.

2.9 Limitations

While the proposed adaptive model is designed for replication, the findings are based on the specific context of the National University of Huancavelica. Readers should consider that local geographical, socioeconomic, and institutional constraints may limit the direct generalizability of the results to all decentralized universities without further contextual adjustment.

3 Results

3.1 Documentary diagnosis of current strategic planning in public procurement

Figure 6 illustrates the evolution of procurement selection methods, which represent the Award phase of the contract life cycle according to the CMS. These procedures are differentiated by complexity and value: (i) Public Bidding and Public Tenders are used for high-value goods, works, and services; (ii) Electronic Reverse Auctions and Price Comparisons are utilized for standardized goods; and (iii) Simplified Award Procedures are streamlined competitive processes for mid-range requirements. The data reveals that Simplified Awards are the most frequent mechanism, peaking in 2022 and 2024, which underscores an institutional reliance on faster execution methods during the award phase to meet regional university needs.

Figure 6

Other procedures—such as tendering, competitive bidding, and electronic reverse auctions—show marginal and variable participation, with no sustained patterns. Direct contracting, although limited, experienced a slight upturn in 2020 and 2022, possibly associated with exceptional conditions or emergency situations. The price comparison procedure shows virtually no use in recent years, which could indicate an institutional preference for other forms of simplified selection.

Figure 7 shows the annual evolution of the total number of public procurement processes executed and the number of processes with negative observations, expressed in the column D, N, C, R, which are defined as follows: (i) Deserted (D): when no valid bids are received or all bidders are disqualified; (ii) Null (N): when the process is invalidated due to legal or procedural errors; (iii) Canceled (C): when the institution terminates the process due to force majeure, budget changes, or public interest; and (iv) Rescheduled (R): when the original timeline is modified due to technical observations or administrative needs. The indicator % of D + N + C + R reflects the percentage of processes with problems or interruptions compared to the annual total.

Figure 7

There has been an increase in observed processes (D + N + C + R): that is, the percentage of processes with incidents rose from 7.5% in 2019 to levels above 40% between 2021 and 2023, representing a notable deterioration in the efficiency of the procurement system. In 2023, the highest peak was reached with 44.19% of processes experiencing difficulties (deserted, lack of bidders; void, due to legal nullity; canceled, for institutional reasons; or rescheduled, due to timeline changes), despite not being the year with the highest total number of processes.

Declining efficiency: Although the number of processes in 2022 and 2024 was high (68 and 61, respectively), there were also worrying percentages of processes with problems (almost 40% in both cases), suggesting a structural weakness in the planning and execution of procurement.

Period 2020–2021: Despite the low number of processes in 2020 (18), 27.78% had observations, possibly affected by exceptional conditions such as the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2021, the percentage shot up to 41.18%, starting a steady trend of inefficiency.

Likewise, the analysis of efficiency in university management revealed structural weaknesses, mainly associated with the Pre-award phase (locally referred to as the preparatory stage) of the procurement life cycle, as defined by the Contract Management Standard (CMS). This phase includes critical activities such as requirement definition and procurement planning. Table 1 shows the information extracted from the specific control reports carried out by the Comptroller General of the Republic and from technical studies by the OSCE, which allows for the identification of recurring causes of inefficiency, both operational and regulatory.

Both reports agree that the identified failures originated in the preparatory acts, confirming that this critical stage presents institutional bottlenecks with a direct impact on the overall efficiency of the procurement system. The units involved—both administrative, operational, technical, and academic—showed weaknesses in the formulation, review, and validation of files, requiring corrective intervention from the planning stage.

Previous findings by the OSCE determined that the Market Feasibility Study (EPOM) accounts for up to 50% of the total time spent on preparatory activities, making it the most critical phase due to the difficulty in identifying suitable suppliers. In addition, a subsequent technical study by the OSCE indicated that the average duration of preparatory actions is 71.6 calendar days, which is higher than that recorded in local governments (64.4 days), with a greater presence of extreme values in university entities and those within the FONAFE sphere, such as the intervened university.

3.2 Regulatory gaps: regulatory contrast between Peru and international standards of university governance

This section analyzes the comparison between Peruvian laws in force in 2025 and a set of relevant international laws, standards, and frameworks in the area of public procurement to identify gaps between the national legal framework and international best practices that strengthen efficiency, transparency, citizen participation, and the quality of public spending.

Table 2 presents the main subtopics regulated by Law No. 32069 and the current international frameworks, indicating gaps between regulations: In more specialized areas—such as supplier evaluation, excellence in contract execution, and citizen participation—the correspondence is only partial, suggesting opportunities for improvement. These gaps relate to emerging practices such as sustainable procurement, project management, and active social control, which have not yet been fully institutionalized in the Peruvian framework. Table 3 shows the gaps summarized by comparing Law 32069 with international standards, as calculated using Equation 3.

When substituting the values, an average Regulatory Alignment Index (RAI) of 55% is obtained, corresponding to a category of Medium Alignment. This result suggests that Law No. 32069 and its regulations (DS 009-2025-EF) incorporate contemporary principles such as value for money, risk management, sustainability, and digitization. However, critical gaps remain in their operationalization, especially in the transformation of these principles into verifiable obligations and technical standards aligned with international frameworks. Among the gaps identified are: the absence of a life cycle approach, the lack of comparable OECD-type indicators, the non-binding incorporation of sustainability under ISO 20400, and the omission of mechanisms such as standstill and effective remedies provided for in the GPA and the UNCITRAL Model Law.

3.3 Civil servants’ perceptions of governance and planning: correlational analysis of surveys

Table 4 presents the results obtained on public servants’ perceptions of the variable “governance,” composed of 13 items (E1–E13) that evaluate institutional efficiency and transparency in state contracting methods.

Perceptions of institutional governance showed averages between 2.64 and 3.37 (median = 3.00), with a standard deviation between 0.77 and 1.11. Item E6 (regarding the autonomy to make decisions during the process) received the lowest rating, while E9 (pertaining to employer recognition of performance) received the highest. Cronbach’s alpha = 0.776 indicates acceptable reliability. These results reflect neutral perceptions, moderate consensus, and specific areas for improvement in public procurement management. Table 5 presents the results obtained from civil servants’ perceptions of the variable of strategic planning in government procurement.

The perception of strategic planning showed averages between 2.70 and 3.17 (median = 3.00), with moderate variability (standard deviation between 0.89 and 1.32). Item P3 (concerning the official’s responsibility to review and adjust plans) had the lowest rating and greatest dispersion, whereas P10 (related to the application of administrative simplification mechanisms) showed the greatest consensus. Cronbach’s alpha = 0.784 indicates acceptable reliability. The results show a neutral perception and specific areas for improvement in institutional strategic management.

Figure 8 presents a line graph comparing the Likert scale ratings (1–5) of the variables Strategic Planning (blue line with circles) and Institutional Governance (orange line with squares) across 152 cases; both variables exhibit oscillating trajectories with parallel behavior in multiple sections, which shows a moderate positive association (ρ = 0.566, p < 0.01), although not strictly linear; this relationship is qualified by high individual dispersion with the presence of extreme values (<2 and >4.5), suggesting perceptual variability between functional units, while the higher concentration of scores between 2.5 and 3.8 reflects a predominantly moderate institutional perception with a tendency toward neutrality in both dimensions evaluated.

Figure 8

Meanwhile, in Figure 9, the results observed in Figure 9, from the correlational analysis between the Strategic Planning variable and the Institutional Governance variable, using Spearman’s coefficient, show a positive and statistically significant relationship. The correlation coefficient obtained was r = 0.5740, with a coefficient of determination R² = 0.3295.

Figure 9

This finding indicates a moderate positive association between the two variables, suggesting that higher levels of planning in public procurement are consistently related to a better perception of operational efficiency and institutional transparency mechanisms at the university analyzed.

However, given that only 33% of the variability in governance can be explained by a linear relationship with planning, it is recommended to explore alternative models (non-linear, multivariate, or others) that can more accurately capture the underlying factors in this relationship.

3.4 Operational efficiency and transparency in public procurement: empirical indicators of time, cost, and compliance

The study proposes an adaptive strategic planning model for university public procurement based on public value. It integrates efficiency, transparency, sustainability, and multilevel governance, validated with empirical indicators. It includes tools that can be replicated in peripheral institutions, defined as regional public entities or decentralized academic campuses located outside the main administrative hub that face specific geographical and structural constraints, suitable for contexts with structural and regulatory constraints, strengthening institutional capacity through results-oriented strategic management. Table 6 shows the transparency index calculated using Equation 1.

In 2020, the lowest index (0.5375) was recorded, reflecting low budget allocation and execution. In 2022 and 2024, optimal levels of transparency (>0.93) were achieved, with a high correlation between what was planned and what was executed. The value >1 in 2024 indicates higher-than-expected execution, attributable to extraordinary efficiency, but with an uncertain future trend. Values above 1.0 indicate that actual expenditures exceeded the initially approved budget due to budget modifications, additional scope, or an underestimation of initial costs.

Table 7 summarizes the standardized annual institutional indicators used to calculate the Institutional Efficiency Index (IEI). This index was constructed using a DEA (Data Envelopment Analysis) stochastic frontier model, adjusted according to ISO 9001:2015 quality standards, and geared toward public higher education institutions.

The Institutional Efficiency Index (IEI) was calculated using Equation 2 based on empirical data, i.e., this index integrates operational components, budget allocations, and perceptions, allowing for the identification of institutional consolidation trajectories between 2019 and 2024, ranging from 1.11 to 1.44, reflecting consistently positive performance in all scenarios evaluated. By being above the base threshold (IEI = 1.00), these results show institutional efficiency above the expected standard, indicating different levels of operational consolidation. The observed trend suggests a progressive institutionalization of good practices in university public management, strengthening operational capacity and the fulfillment of strategic objectives. As shown in Figure 10, the period between 2019 and 2024 reflects the empirical values observed, obtained from variables normalized and validated using the DEA model. Starting in 2025, a nonlinear projection based on wave trajectories is introduced, designed to capture the dynamic behavior of efficiency based on the realistic institutional scenario.

Figure 10

The projection presented incorporates systematic variations associated with reform processes, regulatory alignment, and operational improvement, shaping a modulated evolution of institutional performance. The curvature of the projected trajectory avoids assuming a strictly linear progression, adapting more realistically to the dynamic and fluctuating conditions of a decentralized university context. This quantitative approach, based on the integration of DEA methods, standardization techniques, and validation in accordance with ISO standards, allows for the rigorous empirical measurement of institutional trajectories and the projection of future strategic scenarios, guiding public managers and institutional analysts in decision-making and resource allocation in an efficient manner committed to continuous improvement and evidence-based governance.

4 Discussion

Based on the empirical evidence and the situational analysis conducted, the following key findings highlight the main trends and challenges identified in the university’s procurement management:

4.1 Predominance of simplified procurement

The documentary analysis confirms that simplified procurement, defined as a streamlined competitive selection process for mid-value goods, services, and works, was the predominant contracting mechanism at the National University of Huancavelica (2019–2024), replicating trends in peripheral universities that prioritize speed in smaller-scale acquisitions (OECD, 2023a). However, its recurrent use, to the detriment of competitive procedures such as Public Tendering (for high-value services) or Public Bidding (for high-value goods and works), raises questions about diversification and effects on quality and sustainability (United Nations, 2014). The low use of Price Comparisons (for off-the-shelf goods) and Reverse Auctions (for standardized products) reveals a preference for less complex formats, which could limit cost optimization and transparency (World Bank, 2022; Adam et al., 2024).

4.2 Inefficiency in the pre-award phase (preparatory stage)

The increase in processes with incidents (D + N + C + R), which exceeded 40% between 2021 and 2023, shows a deterioration in operational efficiency that is not solely attributable to the pandemic. This pattern coincides with the Comptroller’s Office and the OSCE, which identify preparatory acts as the main bottleneck. This phase concentrates regulatory, technical, and documentary problems, with considerable economic impact (Haeder and Xu, 2024). The average delay of 71.6 days, which is longer than that of local governments, reinforces the need to redesign processes and incorporate digital tools and standardized management methodologies (PMBOK, FIDIC), which are currently absent from national regulations.

4.3 Regulatory gaps

As discussed in the literature review, the Regulatory Alignment Index (RAI) of 55% places Law No. 32069 at a medium level of convergence with international standards. Despite incorporating principles such as value for money, risk management, sustainability, and digitization, gaps remain: absence of a life cycle approach, lack of comparable OECD indicators, non-mandatory sustainability (ISO 20400), and lack of mechanisms such as standstill periods and effective remedies under the GPA. These limitations restrict the translation of regulatory principles into verifiable procedures (Croucher, 2024).

4.4 Institutional perceptions

The surveys reflect moderate perceptions of governance and strategic planning (averages close to the Likert neutral point), with high dispersion on some items, suggesting heterogeneity in work experiences, possibly associated with differences in technical capabilities, resources, and organizational culture (Krogstie, 2012). The moderate positive correlation (ρ = 0.566; p < 0.01) between planning and efficiency/transparency supports the hypothesis of favorable impact; however, the low R² = 0.3295 reveals the influence of uncontrolled variables such as leadership, incentives, and internal control systems (Aliedan et al., 2022).

4.5 Efficiency and operational paradoxes

The Institutional Efficiency Index (IEI), obtained using the DEA model, exceeded the expected threshold in all the years analyzed, indicating positive overall performance. However, the coexistence of high levels of efficiency with high percentages of procurement processes with audit findings or irregularities (primarily within the pre-award and award phases) poses a paradox: acceptable aggregate results coexist with operational vulnerabilities in critical phases. The non-linear projection to 2030, considering reforms and regulatory adjustments, is a valuable prospective tool whose effectiveness will depend on closing regulatory and operational gaps and making good use of university autonomy.

4.6 Summary

Improving efficiency in university public procurement requires more than legal reforms: it requires effective implementation, strengthening of the preparatory stage, adoption of international standards, and continuous professionalization of staff. The articulation of these elements will allow for more robust governance, capable of sustaining positive results and aligning with global best practices.

5 Conclusion

Positive influence of strategic planning on institutional governance. The correlation analysis showed a positive and significant relationship between strategic planning and institutional governance (ρ = 0.566; p < 0.01), with an R² = 0.3295. Although this correlation indicates a favorable impact, the low coefficient of determination confirms that there are other relevant factors—such as leadership, incentives, and control systems—that also affect the efficiency and transparency of public procurement.

The pre-award phase (preparatory stage) as an operational bottleneck. Documentary and specific control findings revealed that between 2021 and 2023, more than 40% of procurement processes had incidents (deserted, void, canceled, or rescheduled). Reports from the Comptroller’s Office (2023 and 2024) identified technical and documentary deficiencies in preparatory acts, with economic losses of up to S/ 2,982,623.50 and an average duration of 71.6 days, which is longer than that of local governments (64.4 days).

Significant regulatory gaps. The average Regulatory Alignment Index (IAN) was 55%, reflecting an average level of convergence with international standards. Among the main gaps are: the absence of a life cycle approach, the non-mandatory nature of sustainability in accordance with ISO 20400, and the lack of adoption of project management methodologies such as PMBOK or FIDIC.

Paradox between institutional efficiency and operational vulnerabilities. The Institutional Efficiency Index (IEI), calculated using the DEA model, remained above the base threshold (≥1.11) in all the years analyzed, reaching 1.44 in 2022. However, these overall positive results coexist with high percentages of observed processes, which shows that aggregate efficiency does not eliminate critical vulnerabilities.

Strategic recommendations for institutional strengthening. To bridge the identified gaps, decentralized public universities must adopt a comprehensive model rooted in Auditability Theory. First, it is essential to increase the continuous professionalization of procurement staff through structured education and technical certifications (e.g., NCMA or CCMI standards), ensuring a workforce of competent personnel. Second, universities should implement the contract life cycle phases defined by the Contract Management Standard (CMS)—pre-award, award, and post-award—to create capable processes that minimize operational incidents. Finally, these efforts must be supported by effective internal controls and digital transparency tools to ensure accountability. By aligning university management with these global best practices, institutions can transform structural constraints into opportunities for sustainable public value and regulatory excellence.

References

• 1

  AdamI.Dávid-BarrettE.FazekasM. (2024). The political economy of open contracting reforms in low- and middle-income countries. Governance38, 1–20. doi: 10.1111/gove.12897 [E-pub ahead of print].

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AdamsD.KeeG. H.LinL. (2003). “Linking research, policy, and strategic planning to education development in the Lao People’s democratic republic,” in Limitations and Possibilities of Dialogue among Researchers, Policy Makers, and Practitioners: International Perspectives on the Field of Education, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press).

  • Google Scholar

• 3

  AlibekovaA.SembiyevaL.PetrovA.NurumovA. (2021). Organisation problems and audit of the effectiveness of interbudgetary relations. Public Policy Adm.20, 610–621. doi: 10.13165/VPA-21-20-5-05

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  AliedanM. M.ElshaerI. A.AlyahyaM. A.SobaihA. E. E. (2022). Influences of university education support on entrepreneurship orientation and entrepreneurship intention: application of theory of planned behavior. Sustainability (Switzerland)14:13097. doi: 10.3390/su142013097

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  AmmarC. E. L.HajjW. E. L.MrouehA. (2023). DEMATEL analysis of corporate and public governance: identifying key factors for good governance. Admin. Manag. Public41, 102–122. doi: 10.24818/AMP/2023.41-06

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  ArendR. J.ZhaoY. L.SongM.ImS. (2017). Strategic planning as a complex and enabling managerial tool. Strateg. Manage. J.38, 1741–1752. doi: 10.1002/smj.2420

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  BodenR.RowlandsJ. (2022). Paying the piper: the governance of vice-chancellors’ remuneration in Australian and UK universities. High. Educ. Res. Dev.41, 254–268. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2020.1841741

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  BrandsmaG. J.MeijerA. (2022). Transparency and the efficiency of multi-actor decision-making processes: an empirical analysis of 244 decisions in the European Union. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci.88, 626–643. doi: 10.1177/0020852320936750

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  BrysonJ. M.EdwardsL. H.Van SlykeD. M. (2018). Getting strategic about strategic planning research. Public Manage. Rev.20, 317–339. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2017.1285111

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  ChangalimaI. A.MdeeA. E. (2023). Procurement skills and procurement performance in public organizations: the mediating role of procurement planning. Cogent Bus. Manag.10:2163562. doi: 10.1080/23311975.2022.2163562

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  CroucherG. (2024). Academic democracy in the age of corporate governance: addressing challenges to widening participation in university governance. High. Educ. Q.79:e12554. doi: 10.1111/hequ.70043

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  CurajA.DecaL.PricopieR.BerganS. (2018). European Higher Education Area: The Impact of Past and Future Policies. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

  • Google Scholar

• 13

  WittmannA. (2020). Carl Friedrich gauss and the gauss society: a brief overview. Hist. Geo Space Sci.11, 199–205. doi: 10.5194/hgss-11-199-2020

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  da SilvaI. P.ConceiçãoR. D. P. (2024). Sustainability criteria and practices in electro-electronic purchases by IFECT in the northern Brazil region. Rev. Gest. Soc. Ambient.18:e04991. doi: 10.24857/RGSA.V18N2-051

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  De SiqueiraI. R.RamalhoL. (2024). “The challenges of governance in a data scape: theorizing the role of non-extractive methodologies in the 2030 agenda,” in Global Digital Data Governance: Polycentric Perspectives, (London, United Kingdom: Taylor and Francis), 51–67.

  • Google Scholar

• 16

  DiefenbachT. (2009). New public management in public sector organizations: the dark sides of managerialistic “enlightenment.”. Public Adm.87, 892–909. doi: 10.1111/J.1467-9299.2009.01766.X

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  DouglasS.MeijerA. (2016). Transparency and public value—analyzing the transparency practices and value creation of public utilities. Int. J. Public Adm.39, 940–951. doi: 10.1080/01900692.2015.1064133

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  DragašB.ErcegovacS.KordićM. T. (2022). In the rift between criteria: procurement of unreliable nonfiction materials in public libraries. Vjesn. Bibl. Hrvat.65, 125–151. doi: 10.30754/vbh.65.3.1015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  EgbonT. N. (2024). Application of agency theory in administrative accountability and public service delivery in local government councils in Delta state. Int. J. Public Admin. Stud.3:125. doi: 10.29103/ijpas.v3i2.13890

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  El KezazyH.HilmiY.EzzahraE. F.HocineI. Z. H. (2024). Conceptual model of the role of territorial management controller and good governance. Rev. Gest. Soc. Ambient.18:e05457. doi: 10.24857/RGSA.V18N7-068

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  GrueningG. (2001). Origin and theoretical basis of new public management. Int. Public Manag. J.4, 1–25. doi: 10.1016/S1096-7494(01)00041-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  HaederS. F.XuW. Y. (2024). Consumer experiences navigating health care provider directories and support of federal policy action. World Med. Health Policy16, 577–599. doi: 10.1002/wmh3.625

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  HoodC. (1995). The “new public management” in the 1980s: variations on a theme. Account. Organ. Soc.20, 93–109. doi: 10.1016/0361-3682(93)E0001-W

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  IbrahimT. K. T.Al-MatariE. M. (2022). The effect of governance rules application controls and the accrual basis application controls on quality of financial reporting: applying to Jouf university. Sustainability14:2831. doi: 10.3390/su14052831

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  IsraelB. (2025). Digitalisation opportunities as drivers of confidentiality rules in public procurement: organisational information culture as a moderator. J. Process Manag. New Technol.13, 38–55. doi: 10.5937/jpmnt13-55680

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  Karikari AppiahM.AmaningN.TetteviP. K.Frimpong OwusuD.Opoku WareE. (2023). Internal audit effectiveness as a boon to public procurement performance: a multi mediation model. Cogent Econ. Finance11:2164968. doi: 10.1080/23322039.2023.2164968

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  KretschmerS.DehmS. (2021). Sustainability transitions in university food service—a living lab approach of locavore meal planning and procurement. Sustainability13:7305. doi: 10.3390/su13137305

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  KrogstieJ. (2012). “Quality of models,” in Model-Based Development and Evolution of Information Systems, (Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer London), 205–247.

  • Google Scholar

• 29

  LozanoJ. M. V.BardalesJ. D. (2024). Impact of technological barriers on the efficiency and transparency of public management: a systematic review. J. Infrastruct. Policy Dev.8:3116. doi: 10.24294/jipd9116

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  MaepaD. N.MpwanyaM. F.PhumeT. B. (2023). Readiness factors affecting e-procurement in south African government departments. J. Transp. Supply Chain Manag.17:874. doi: 10.4102/jtscm.v17i0.874

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  MebrateY.ShumetK. (2024). Assessing the impact of procurement practice on organizational performance. Cogent Bus. Manag.11:2315687. doi: 10.1080/23311975.2024.2315687

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  MendonçaR. C. A.PedrosaI. V.CamaraM. A. O. A. (2021). Sustainable public procurement in a Brazilian higher education institution. Environ. Dev. Sustain.23, 17094–17125. doi: 10.1007/s10668-021-01345-9,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  MidttunA. (2021). “Polycentric governance in a bipolar world,” in Governance and Business Models for Sustainable Capitalism, (Abingdon, Oxon, United Kingdom: Routledge), 189–195.

  • Google Scholar

• 34

  MintzbergH. (1994). Rethinking strategic planning part II: new roles for planners. Long Range Plan.27, 22–30. doi: 10.1016/0024-6301(94)90186-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  MooreM. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard University Press. Available online at: https://archive.org/details/creatingpublicva0000moor

  • Google Scholar

• 36

  MurunT.UmemiyaC.MorimotoT.HattoriT. (2023). Practical solutions for addressing challenges in national reporting for the enhanced transparency framework: cases from developing countries in the Asia–Pacific region. Sustainability15:14771. doi: 10.3390/su152014771

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  National Contract Management Association [NCMA] (2023). Contract Management StandardTM (CMS), 3rd Edition. National Contract Management Association. Available online at: https://ccm.institute/cms/overview (Accessed March 8, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 38

  NonatoC. B.Fontes-FilhoJ. R.de MichelottoF. P. (2024). Strategic planning: unraveling civil servants’ autonomy and motivation through social representations of organizational goals. Rev. Adm. Publica58:e20240128. doi: 10.1590/0034-761220240128x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  HidayahN.HapsariD. W.SaputraK. A.DharmawanN. A.YadiatiW. (2023). Can institutional good governance and intellectual capital affect university quality?Int. J. Econ. Manag.17, 251–261. doi: 10.47836/ijeam.17.2.07

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  OECD (2023a). Managing risks in the public procurement of goods, services and infrastructure. Paris, France. doi: 10.1787/45667d2f-es

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  OECD (2023b). Public procurement performance: a framework for measuring efficiency, compliance and strategic goals. Paris, France. doi: 10.1787/0dde73f4-en

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  O’FlynnJ. (2021). Where to for public value? Taking stock and moving on. Int. J. Public Adm.44, 867–877. doi: 10.1080/01900692.2021.1884696

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  OMC (2010). Acuerdo sobre Contratación Pública. Geneva, Switzerland. doi: 10.30875/588c04ab-es

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  OrfanidouV. S.RachaniotisN. P.TsoulfasG. T.ChondrokoukisG. P. (2023). Life cycle costing implementation in green public procurement: a case study from the Greek public sector. Sustainability15:2817. doi: 10.3390/su15032817

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  PattaroA. F.Moura e SáP.de KruijfJ. A. M. (2022). “Transparency and accountability in higher education as a response to external stakeholders and rules: a comparison between three country-case studies,” in SIDREA Series in Accounting and Business Administration, (Cham, Switzerland: Springer)

  • Google Scholar

• 46

  PavesiF. C.RichiedeiA.PezzagnoM. (2021). Advanced modelling tools to support planning for sand/gravel quarries. Sustainability13:6380. doi: 10.3390/su13116380

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  PopovV.MedineckienėM.GrigorjevaT.ZabulėnasA. R. (2021). Building information modelling: procurement procedure. Bus. Manag. Econ. Eng.19, 180–197. doi: 10.3846/bmee.2021.14653

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  PowerM. (1996). Making things auditable. Account. Organ. Soc.21, 289–315. doi: 10.1016/0361-3682(95)00004-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  Ragin-SkoreckaK.HadaśŁ. (2024). Sustainable e-procurement: key factors influencing user satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Sustainability16:5649. doi: 10.3390/su16135649

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  RamírezY.MonteroF. (2024). Main factors influencing the digital transparency in higher education institutions. Rev. Esp. Doc. Cient.47:e376. doi: 10.3989/redc.2024.1.1384

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  RohT.LeeK.YangJ. Y. (2021). How do intellectual property rights and government support drive a firm’s green innovation? The mediating role of open innovation. J. Clean. Prod.317:128422. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128422

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  SolovovaN. V.SukhankinaN. V. (2020). Comparative and correlation analysis of experimental work for developing organisational and managerial competences in university teachers. Educ. Self Dev.15, 106–116. doi: 10.26907/esd15.3.09

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  SoyluA.CorchoÓ.ElvesæterB.Badenes-OlmedoC.Yedro-MartínezF.KovacicM.et al. (2022). Data quality barriers for transparency in public procurement. Information13:99. doi: 10.3390/info13020099

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  United Nations (2014). UNCITRAL model law on public procurement. New York, NY, USA. doi: 10.18356/4f1f3cc1-en

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  VeltriS.PuntilloP.PierriF. (2022). Investigating the association between universities’ corporate governance structure and the knowledge transfer performance outcomes. Eur. J. Innov. Manag.25, 1154–1179. doi: 10.1108/EJIM-01-2022-0003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  World Bank (2022). Open contracting data standard. Washington, DC, USA. Available online at: https://documentos.bancomundial.org/es/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/744551614955316901/open-contracting-data-standard (Accessed June 24, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 57

  YeM. (2023). The theory of auditing economics: evidence and suggestions for future research. Found. Trends® Account.18, 138–267. doi: 10.1561/1400000072

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  ZarrinM.BrunnerJ. O. (2023). Analyzing the accuracy of variable returns to scale data envelopment analysis models. Eur. J. Oper. Res.308, 1286–1301. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2022.12.015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar