Contextual and Structural Factors, Project Modelling and Sustainability of Entrepreneurial Development Projects: A Conceptual Framework

Projects emanate from ideas to solve an underlying need. Ideally, a project aims to solve a problem among beneficiaries. Notwithstanding the imperative role of entrepreneurship in socioeconomic prosperity, sustainability of development projects focusing on the empowerment of entrepreneurs is gaining attention on the wheels of research. Of interest are entrepreneurial development projects that fail to attain the desired impacts despite huge capital investments. Ineffective decision-making associated with unrealistic expectations often implicates sustainable delivery of outcomes. Hoverers, foundations for sustainable delivery of entrepreneurship development projects are elusively theorized. Lack of theoretical consent and standardized practice of modelling project intervention relative to attaining sustainable deliverables deprives us of essential knowledge for decision-making. Failure to align project implementation models to the prevailing reality of entrepreneurship is believed to contribute to this dismal. Against the background, this paper presents a theoretical and conceptual framework for the interaction between contextual and structural factors, project modelling and sustainability of entrepreneurial development project interventions. 21 peer-reviewed articles were selected through screening. Meta-analysis was used to review the converging and diverging issues while identifying and synthesizing research gaps that connect with the research problem identified. While project modelling was found to be critical in achieving sustainable impacts, the findings were based on linear perspectives and ignored the prevailing structural and contextual dynamics. Hence, the proposition that structural and contextual factors mediate and moderate the sustainability of entrepreneurial development projects, respectively.

Introduction

Entrepreneurship is considered an important contributor to the socioeconomic growth and development of nations. It provides impetus to investment and stimulates resource mobilization, which in turn accelerates innovation in production and service delivery (Pattanayak & Padhy, 2022). However, entrepreneurship is often faced with myriads of challenges not limited to inadequate skills, lack of operation spaces, limited access to credit, poor technologies and high competition, which normally leads to about 50% failure rate of new enterprises within the first year (Navamarat, 2018). In an attempt to address these constraints, the World Bank recognizes the importance of empowerment programmes for entrepreneurs, such as credit facilities, technical assistance, and other business advisory services (World Bank, 2019). Similarly, the International Labour Organization (ILO, 2021) considers the expansion of entrepreneurship through empowerment programmes as the building block towards prosperity. As a result, many countries are embarking on numerous empowerment interventions seeking to build the capacity of their entrepreneurs by imparting relevant skills, providing credit facilities and providing affordable worksites and marketing, among other interventions (Dadzieet al., 2020). Nonetheless, many of such interventions fail to deliver due to operational challenges that reflect the poor implementation orientation relative to the prevailing dynamics.

In the United States, entrepreneurship is considered a key driver of innovative job creation and accelerated economic growth. As a result, entrepreneurship development policies are quickly shifting focus to empowerment programmes such as reduction in the regulatory burden, provision of incubators, research and development, digitization of entrepreneurship, training, subsidized loans and promotion in the export market (Autio, 2016). However, these interventions have yet to bear the expected results due to what Sevilla-Bernardoet al. (2022) cite as sociocultural constraints, environmental differences and wrong management approaches. This concern is also emphasized by Woodet al. (2021) in their research work on empowerment and sustainability, who found that cultural contexts had a greater influence on the success and sustainability of entrepreneurial development projects. In Europe, entrepreneurship is viewed as the ultimate pillar towards social inclusion, job creation and economic prosperity. To this end, European Union member states are executing numerous programmes and projects aimed at supporting entrepreneurship with interventions such as financial support, business incubation, training and mentorship. Despite the interventions, the EU is also facing challenges in sustaining entrepreneurial empowerment due to inadequate entrepreneurial management capacities, financing, complex culture, and regulatory frameworks (Liargovaset al., 2022). These bottlenecks can be mitigated through realistic project modelling approaches that focus on attaining sustainable deliverables through informed planning, clarification, implementation and monitoring (EY, 2021).

In the Middle East, the sustainability of entrepreneur empowerment is facing sustainability challenges due to the cultural issues relating to the role of gender in development (Hassanet al., 2022). Lack of understanding of the contexts in which projects are developed and impended is another potential challenge facing the sustainability of entrepreneurial empowerment projects. India is overcoming the sociocultural challenges facing the empowerment of entrepreneurs through the expansion of social inclusion and capacity-building programmes whereby the contextual dimensions of the project are integrated into the sustainability decisions (Venugopalanet al., 2021).

In African states like Nigeria and South Africa, entrepreneurial development projects fail to attain sustainable impacts due to inefficient modelling that fails to meet the existing realities (Briereet al., 2015). A practical case in hand is the entrepreneurial development schemes in Nigeria that are critiqued over poor collaborative approaches in supporting business advisory services like financial management, thereby derailing the realization of sustainable impacts (Oladejiet al., 2022). In Kenya, poor project implementation frameworks like strategic leadership, culture and communication are empirically found to dwarf the performance and responsiveness of empowerment projects in Marsabit County (Mohamed & Mwasiaji, 2023). Nonetheless, the literature constructs project implementation models from a linear perspective against the expected results. This limitation arises due to the erroneous assumption that entrepreneurship empowerment projects are implemented in static environments. Also, the literature conceptualizes sustainability from a narrower dimension of intermediary deliverables, thus ignoring the long-term impacts. This calls for a more pragmatic assessment of sustainability based on outcome and impact indicators.

Problem Statement

Kenya’s Vision 2030 aspires to grow its status into upper-middle-income status through rapid industrialization. To achieve this goal, the government has employed numerous strategies, including the institutional and project frameworks that seek to enhance local entrepreneurship through specific interventions like training and capacity building, provision of working spaces, financial support and assistance in marketing. The interventions are based on the prevailing challenges facing the growth and sustainability of enterprises, which include inadequate finance, poor working spaces and infrastructure, lack of technical and management skills, limited access to the market, poor coordination, inadequate institutional support, and stringent regulations (Momanyiet al., 2023). However, much capital is wasted through wrong investment decisions that fail to deliver on expected and desired entrepreneurial outcomes. For instance, with an annual budget of 412 million Kenya Shillings, the government established the Youth Enterprise Fund (YEF) in 2006 to provide grants and loans to entrepreneurs. However, the project is ineffective in its deliverables due to poor implementation and mismanagement practices (Mutethia, 2019). Uwezo Fund is another programme established in 2013 to promote people living with disabilities and women in entrepreneurship through credit access, but it is largely faced with implementation hiccups. Established in 2014, the Biashara Fund is another project intervention that promotes entrepreneurship by offering affordable credit services to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Kenya. However, the project has largely been criticized for its lack of a well-structured implementation framework, leading to unresponsive deliverables (Mbugua & Kosimbei, 2019).

Women Enterprise Fund (WEF) is another empowerment project conceptualized in 2007 to provide grants and loans to women entrepreneurs in Kenya. While the annual budget for WEF was expected to rise to 100 million USD in the Government Financial Year 2023/2024, the methodology for the implementation is criticized over poor integration mechanism that is complicated by low rate of loan disbursement, high-interest rates leading to low impacts among women entrepreneurs (Kigundu & Ndungu, 2023). A report by Njoki (2020) shows that capacity building of entrepreneurs and funding under the Micro and Small Enterprise Authority’s (MSEA) fund is ineffective due to contextual barriers. In 2009, at a budget of 784 million Kenya Shilling, Kenya’s government rolled out the Constituency Industrial Development Centers (CIDCs) project to provide workspace and common manufacturing facilities to entrepreneurs across the country (Government of Kenya, 2018). The project aimed to attain its goal through construction, installation of equipment and capacity-building entrepreneurs. Nevertheless, an audit report shows that operationalization of the project was taking longer despite 85% completion due to poor modelling due to inadequate planning, implementation and operationalization (Republic of Kenya, 2012). In 2020, the government of Kenya conceived the Micro and Small Enterprise (MSE) Fund programme to augment all other affirmative action fund projects so as to promote the growth and expansion of entrepreneurship (Mahandara & Ochola, 2020). However, due to design and planning challenges that complicated its operations, the much-awaited programme has never been rolled out.

Good practices in project management are anchored on the principle of beneficiary need analysis, adaptation management and sufficient institutional support (PMI, 2021). Project interventions must provide an adequate framework for supporting realistic planning and successful project implementation. This can easily be attained by selecting the most adaptable implementation model that suits the prevailing circumstances. While the project model integrates user needs into the project design and implementation mechanism, ensuring that beneficiaries have the right and the necessary support required to succeed, the most sustainable model for entrepreneur empowerment should be need-based, result-oriented, participatory and adaptive. The findings from a study by Al-Ameri and Musa (2021) on the impact of project management on business performance in the UAE indicated a significant influence of management models on business performance. The findings from a related study by Bigirumwamiet al. (2023) suggest that the agile project management model increases the success rate of small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) projects in Rwanda setting. However, the generalization of the findings suffered limited generalization to Rwandan geographical settings. Furthermore, the reviewed study assumed that project models affected the performance of projects from linear dimensions, ignoring the existence of knowledge from multiple realities. Further, the dependent variables focused on performance, which is attributed to short-term indicators and ignored long-term impacts that are tied to the sustainability of the project.

In Kenya, Dzansiet al. (2019) carried out a study focusing on the project model of accessing credit and capacity needs in entrepreneurial projects and found the prevailing project context significantly affected the responsiveness of an entrepreneur’s empowerment project. However, the findings were limited to linear relationships. The knowledge gaps can be filled by considering sustainability from multiple contextual and situational factors interactions.

Research Objectives

The research objectives are:

1. To establish the influence of project modelling on the sustainability of entrepreneurial development projects in Kenya,
2. To examine the mediation of structural factors on project modelling and sustainability of entrepreneurial development projects in Kenya,
3. To assess the moderation of contextual factors on project modelling and sustainability of entrepreneurial development projects in Kenya.

Research Hypotheses

The null hypotheses are:

1. H₀₁: Project modelling does not influence the sustainability of entrepreneurial development projects in Kenya.
2. H₀₂: Structural factors do not mediate the association of project modelling and sustainability of entrepreneurial development projects in Kenya.
3. H₀₃: Contextual factors do not moderate the association of project modelling and sustainability of entrepreneurial development projects in Kenya.

Literature Review

Project Modelling and Sustainability of Entrepreneurial Development Project

The concept of sustainability in entrepreneurial development interventions is drawn from a comprehensive empirical review by Rosarioet al. (2022). In that study, sustainability is understood from multidimensional aspects of entrepreneurial growth and development and socioeconomic outcomes. While the antecedents for attaining sustainable entrepreneurship development are broadly enlightened against individual, institutional, contextual, and structural factors, the processes, and practices for such realization were not clarified. Esteveset al. (2021) attribute the sustainability of entrepreneurship development projects to growth in capacities, social and environmental outcomes, networking and collaborations, and institutional and policy support. Entrepreneurial development projects are said to be sustainable if the project can sustain financial support, job creation, business growth and expansion, innovation and adaptability, and promote social and environmental integrity.

According to the PMI (2021), an effective project model promotes better planning, implementation, and control to ensure delivery within budget, time, and quality constraints. The most effective project model ensures that tasks, resources, milestones, and deliverables are effectively managed in the reality of a constantly changing environment. This should involve support mechanisms like providing suitable working spaces and capacity building, training and mentorship, financial empowerment, and marketing. A good project model should be collaborative and understandable to the project team and stakeholders. The project model is based on realistic constraints and assumptions and is comprehensive in covering all project goals, constraints, risks, stakeholders, and sensitivity to environmental changes. Other qualities of effective project models are scalability, adjustability, measurable metrics for tracking and evaluating progress, creating areas of learning and improvement, and adaptability to complex project requirements (Kerzner, 2022). The most popular project models are Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), critical paths, agile, waterfall, scrum, spiral, Kanban, hybrid, lean, Six Sigma, Projects in Controlled Environment (PRINCE) and extreme programming (Highsmith, 2009). However, the choice of a project depends on factors such as project characteristics like size, duration, and complexity (Upchurchet al., 2022). The experience and expertise of project team members, stakeholder preference, project objectives or products, and availability of resources are other factors that influence the choice of a project model. Project managers can choose the most responsive project model based on the rationale that the model will meet the project needs and maximize the results and project success.

Irfanet al. (2019) did an empirical study on the effects of project management capabilities on the project success in Pakistan, where it was found that project management model had positive relationship with success rate of projects. Whereas the findings highlighted the importance of modelling in project management, the dependent (success) variable failed to address the long impact aspects to the project. In addition, the study failed to factor external factors in the relationship underscore. Also, the findings were not anchored on any theoretical foundation, thus lowering the construct validity.

In Rwanda, Bigirumwamiet al. (2023) explored the influence of agile project management practices on project performance and found that agility in stakeholder collaboration, change management and continuous improvement enhanced project performance and success. However, reliance on close-ended questionnaires lowered internal validity for concluding the results. Also, the concept of agile project management was narrowly and linearly explored, limiting a deeper understanding of the phenomenon.

In Kenya, Ndungu and Karugu (2018) did a study on the determinants of sustainability of Micro and Small enterprise projects owned by youth in Nairobi City County and found that sustainability had a high correlation with competitive environment, access to finance and entrepreneurial skills. However, reliance on structured questionnaires lowered validity internal validity. The perception of the research question from the linear model assumed non-existent non-linear interactions, which may be erroneous. In addition, the findings reflected the phenomenon of heterogeneous projects and research environments, which increased standard errors in concluding the findings. Based on these limitations, the following proposition is stated:

H₀₁: Project modelling does not influence the sustainability of entrepreneurial development projects in Kenya.

Structural Factors, Project Modelling, and Sustainability of Entrepreneurial Development Project

Structural factors are the underlying internal aspects of the organization’s environment and include but are not limited to project goals, resources, scope, infrastructure and technologies. These aspects are important drivers of the efficiency, effectiveness, quality and performance of a project (PMI, 2021). Therefore, the project manager must be conversant with the structural factors that have significant effects on the realization of the sustainable impacts of projects. Awareness of structural factors surrounding a project is also important as it may help design adaptable mechanisms for addressing the negative impacts of structural weaknesses while optimizing the positive aspects to deliver sustainable outcomes.

In Nigeria, Ibrahim and Mas’ud (2016) did a study focusing on moderating the role of entrepreneurial orientation on the relationship between entrepreneurial skills, environmental factors and entrepreneurial intention. The findings indicated that the ability of structural factors to predict the sustainability of entrepreneurship was moderated by personal, environmental-situational, judicial, economic and political. Nevertheless, the nature and the strength of influence of structural factors on the sustainability of the project underscore was not explicit. Again, the generalization of the findings was limited to Nigerian geographical settings.

In Bangladesh, Rattanawiboonsom and Ali (2016) explored the factors affecting entrepreneurial management and found that institutional structure had a significant influence on the sustainability of entrepreneurship development initiatives. While the findings by Rattanawiboonsom and Ali (2016) were important in deriving insights on the possible structural interventions for promoting the sustainability of entrepreneurship development, the conceptualization presumed that the relationship underscore existed only in linear angle and thus ignoring the possibility of non-linear interactions. This argument may be true if factor analysis was done for each construct of structural factors. Furthermore, the study ignored the role of contextual factors in attaining sustainable impacts. Furthermore, sustainability was viewed from a linear perspective.

A study by Khalilov and Yi (2021) on the institutions in entrepreneurship in developing countries found that the normative structures of institutions are significantly related to sustainable entrepreneurship. However, consideration of structural factors as independent variables may have overlooked the importance of the project implementation model in promoting sustainability. In addition, the study assumed that contextual factors were constant in achieving sustainable impacts.

Structural factors like the design and implementation of project models can affect the sustainability of entrepreneurship empowerment projects. For instance, Kamunyu and Theuri (2017) conducted an exploratory study focusing on the factors affecting the growth of women-owned small and medium-sized enterprises in Kenya and found that structural challenges like limited infrastructure limited sustainability and growth of women entrepreneurship. Thus, structural factors in the design of entrepreneur empowerment projects are important in increasing the chances of meeting entrepreneurs` needs. However, the linkage between structural factors and sustainability was formed based on the assumption of linear modelling. The findings suffered limited generalization to women empowerment projects. In the literature, structural factors are found to affect the project’s resource mobilization, decision-making, innovation, and operations, and this may have ripple effects on the project’s ability to offer impactful deliverables. Hence, the proposition that:

H₀₂: Structural factors do not mediate the association of project modelling and sustainability of entrepreneurial development projects in Kenya.

Contextual Factors, Project Modelling, and Sustainability of Entrepreneurial Development Project

Contextual factors are largely external and include specific environmental conditions a particular organization faces to accomplish its goals. These factors include but are not limited to economics, governance, regulation, sociocultural and market conditions. Depending on the environment of interaction, contextual factors can positively or negatively affect the means of attaining the goals of a project intervention (PMI, 2021). Therefore, understanding the project context helps develop effective strategies for integrating project context into the project implementation framework to promote sustainable deliverables.

In Bangladesh, for instance, Rahimet al. (2019) did a contextual analysis on women entrepreneurs whereby low business skills and communication skills, inadequate support, lack of feasibility study, poor technological knowledge and networking skills were found to impede sustainable entrepreneurial growth. However, reliance on qualitative methodology degraded the internal and external validity for concluding and generalizing the findings. Furthermore, the study was conceived from a linear angle and ignored the possibility of multiple interactions between project context and sustainability. In that study, other factors like project modelling were assumed to be static, yet each project is unique in design and context.

Choi and Lim (2017) explored the contextual factors affecting the innovation performance of manufacturing SMEs in Korea and found that contextual factors like skills, technology, and government policies regulated entrepreneurs and predicted the future state of the phenomenon. On equal measure, the finding was based on linear viewpoints and ignored the possibility of multiple interactions between the variables. Khanet al. (2019) explored deficiencies in project governance on infrastructure programs in Pakistan and found shortcomings in decision-making over prevailing contextual factors. However, the study failed to contextualize governance in the implementation modelling. Further, the generalization of the findings was limited to Pakistan settings.

Ogujiubaet al. (2020) did an empirical study on the factors influencing sustainable entrepreneurship in South Africa, and the results showed that contextual factors like SME characteristics, management capacity, and capital had a significant effect on the sustainability of projects. While the findings provided valuable insights into the role of project context in attaining sustainable results, the generalization of the findings was limited to South African settings. In addition, contextual factors were conceived as independent variables, and the research model was linear. Additionally, the findings considered project context as an independent variable, thus ignoring its multiple effects on sustainability.

In Kenya, Kaumbuluet al. (2020) did a study focusing on the role of project governance on the sustainability of youth empowerment projects in Makueni County and found that effective governance mechanisms, structures, and strategies improve project sustainability. However, the domain for measuring project context was not elaborate to derive a deeper understanding of the phenomenon. Also, the study suffered methodological limitations by assuming that questionaries alone as a medium of data collection could generate valid responses.

The findings from the review of past studies shed a green light on the potential implications of contextual factors on the sustainability of entrepreneurship projects. However, the reviewed studies suffered methodological and generalization limitations. The conceptualization of contextual factors was based on broad external factors and failed to narrow down project-specific barriers. As a result, the following proposition is generated:

H₀₃: Contextual factors do not moderate the association of project modelling and sustainability of entrepreneurial development projects in Kenya.

Conceptual Framework

Fig. 1 illustrates the flow of the research variables. The outcome variable is the sustainability of entrepreneurial development projects. The predictor variable is project modeling. Contextual factors are perceived to play a dualistic role: mediation and moderation of the relationship between project modeling and sustainability of entrepreneurial development projects.

Fig. 1. The conceptual framework of the present study.

Theoretical Frameworks

The supporting theories include the sustainability theory, the theory of constraint management, and the system theory of management. Sustainability theory was advanced by Ekardt (2009) to advocate development practices and principles that promote the long-term usefulness and stability of social, economic, and environmental systems (Ekardt, 2019). It states that a development intervention should be executed responsibly to promote the useful utility of the outcomes by the current and future progeny. Sustainability theory is crucial in project discourses as it underscores the importance of informed planning and implementation in order to optimize the values and gains from the intervention. Thus, the project should integrate stakeholders` needs with implementation models and strategies adaptable to the prevailing situation and context to achieve sustainable impacts.

Goldratt Eliyahu proposed the theory of constraint management in the 1980s to emphasize logical and systematic approaches when resolving a problem. Goldratt proposed five steps, including identifying the constraint, exploiting the constraint, subordination of the system in support of constraint elimination, elevation of the constraint and process repetition (Talib & Kashkool, 2019). Projects are more sustainable by effectively applying the principles of the theory of constraints, including identifying the social, economic and environmental requirements while developing adaptable implementation mechanisms through modelling.

In the 1950s, Bertalanffy and Ludwig repackaged the systems theory of management to help organizations accomplish their goals while meeting dynamic environmental needs. This theory assumes that an organization exists as a system comprising interrelated and interdependent sub-systems operating holistically to achieve common goals (Sharma, 1990). A change in the sub-system or environment can adversely affect the entire system and, therefore, must be effectively managed to sustain organization deliveries. In the context of this study, sustainable projects are believed to operate in an open system whereby project input, processes and outputs are managed inherently with contextual and situational needs.

Methodology

In developing this conceptual framework, 21 empirical studies were purposefully selected pursuant to the theme of the review. Meta-analysis was adopted to analyze the selected studies in order to identify research gaps and synthesize and generate propositions. Each article was critically reviewed, after which strands of concepts joining each article to the theme were generated. The actual analysis was done qualitatively through coding and theme generation. The integrated review focused on identifying and evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each article based on the limitations and linking them with the problem identified from the Kenyan context. Specific viewpoint focused on the structural, conceptual, methodological, theoretical, environmental and contextual limitations. As a result, a conceptual framework and corresponding research objectives and hypotheses were developed for further study.

Results and Discussions

Under the first theme of project modelling and sustainability of entrepreneurial development projects, the findings from the review of empirical studies showed that project modelling is an important factor that affects the sustainability of entrepreneurs' development projects (Al-Ameri & Musa, 2021; Ali et al., 2018; Ndungu & Karugu, 2018). The authors converged on the view that project modelling is useful in identifying and addressing potential challenges and risks that may hinder the sustainable realization of project deliverables. Nevertheless, authors held different orientations on what constitutes project modelling and relative affinity to the sustainability aspects. Still, the authors failed to factor the context and environment in which project modelling is executed to persuade sustainability. This knowledge gap offers an opportunity for further study to better understand how the project-specific models interact with internal and external environments to ensure the long-term sustainability of entrepreneurial development projects.

In the second theme, the reviewed articles sought to support the question of the interaction between structural factors, project modelling and sustainability of entrepreneurial development projects. The findings from empirical studies by Ibrahim and Mas’ud (2016), Rattanawiboonsom and Ali (2016), and Kamunyu and Theuri (2017) showed that structural factors contribute to the sustainability of the projects underscore. However, the nature and the strength of the influence of structural factors on the sustainability of entrepreneurship development projects were inconsistent. The authors conceived structural factors from different philosophical orientations, which generated clinical variances in the dependent variable. Additionally, the authors assumed that structural factors and sustainability of the projects existed in linear dimensions, thus ignoring the contexts of operation. Moreover, the authors used divergent methodologies and focused on different projects executed in different geographical settings, thus lowering the generalization of the findings. This calls for a pragmatic orientation in defining structural factors in the adoption of future research methodologies in order to produce generalizable results.

The third theme focused on contextual factors, project modelling and sustainability of entrepreneurial development projects. Reviewed articles revealed a general trend that linked contextual factors to the sustainability of entrepreneurship development projects (Choi & Lim, 2017; Kaumbuluet al., 2020; Khanet al., 2019; Ogujiubaet al., 2020; Rahimet al., 2019). While all the authors assumed that contextual factors exerted linear influence on the sustainability of projects, the authors held different viewpoints on the definition of contextual factors, which distorted the application of the knowledge created. These conceptual and methodological knowledge gaps can be filled through the pragmatic construction of contextual factors while subjecting project sustainability assessment to the prevailing environment.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the convergent and divergent findings, it is concluded that project modelling and structural and contextual factors have linear contributions to the sustainability of entrepreneurial development projects. However, there is a lack of consensus on the ideal constructs for each variable, which distorts their contribution to the sustainability of the projects. It is therefore recommended that future studies adopt pragmatic viewpoints when defining research constructs and when choosing research methodologies while considering the dynamic conditions in which projects are executed. Future studies should be subjected to multiple projects to better understand how this phenomenon exists in different settings and environments.