As the first element of this theoretical framework, the concept of organizational capacity was explored. Nelson and Winter [9] mention that organizational capabilities are made up of action and performance. Therefore, an organization has a capacity when it manages to effectively execute an action, which is valuable and appreciated by the different stakeholders, which represents a differentiating position compared to other referent organizations. For the development of a capacity, there must be routines or patterns of action that allow the organization to generate enough knowledge to solve day-to-day problems naturally and not as a sporadic triumph in a specific situation. In other words, capabilities represent a reliable pattern of action to respond to organizational challenges [10].

Organizational learning capacity can be defined as the sum of learning that results from permanent social interaction inside and outside the organization and strengthens individual and group reflection processes [11]. Organizational learning capacity depends on the potential for creation, assimilation and knowledge transfer to act correctly in changing environments. If the level of development of the organizational learning capacity is high, the competitiveness index will be positively affected [12]. In this sense, the dynamic nature of learning capacity is identified, which is associated with rapid changes in the environment, especially motivated by the economy, technology and culture. This affects the behavior of companies; their strategic position must respond to the new environmental conditions. The results that an organization achieves will depend on its knowledge base and its learning capacity [13].

Peter Senge [8] identifies five disciplines that an intelligent organization must have and that can be interpreted as variables that define organizational learning capacity: systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, and team learning. Every organization must be open to permanent learning, this will allow its work teams to adapt more easily to changes in the environment, making it an intelligent organization. Each member of an organization is valuable and capable of delivering innovative and quality results that impact the vision of the organization, strengthening its competitive advantage.

Systemic thinking is associated with the ability to understand the environment as a system through the variables that make it up. In other words, systemic thinking is defined as the ability to solve problems in a complex environment characterized by the interaction of multiple variables [14]. Systems thinking identifies the multidimensional interrelationships of everyday situations, instead of associating them with linear cause-effect chains. Reality is understood as a system made up of interconnected objects through subsystems and not as a series of isolated situations, this allows the identification of behavior patterns for decision making. The whole is always more than the sum of the parts [15]. The interrelation between the different subsystems greatly affects the results obtained, in this sense, studying a situation in a disjointed way affects the decisions that can be made to a great extent the results due to evaluation and response biases. In the field of project management, systemic thinking has a determining meaning, the diversity of elements that make up a project define a complex character to the management and the achievement of the common result [16].

An intelligent organization, with the capacity to learn, is developed through work teams with a high level of personal mastery, with the capacity to adopt individual growth and learning routines that strengthen the organization and allow it to solve problems in a creative and less reactive way. People with personal mastery make objective decisions and more accurately assess what is important and what is not [17]. Personal mastery facilitates a clear vision of reality, allowing us to differentiate what is desired from what can actually be achieved. An intelligent organization is developed through continuous learning. In the case of project management, continuous learning is one of the key variables to achieve the success of a project [18].

A mental model can be defined as a thought mechanism through which a person tries to explain how a specific reality works. Mental models in principle are hypothetical and have an important role in cognition processes, allowing people to have an interpretation of the context in which they interact, directly affecting their behavior [19]. Strengthening the organizational learning capacity requires modifying people's mental models, which makes teams work as a group process of professional and personal growth, this implies the permanent review of the organizational culture. Individual behavior is determined by their mental models [20].

Vision is defined as the medium-term goal of an organization. Achieving a shared vision involves people with a common purpose, in this sense, aligning the personal vision with the shared vision creates the necessary synergy to achieve the expected results. Talent in organizations is diverse and converges through the interaction of different systems, generating new ideas and ways of interpreting reality [21]. The shared vision gives meaning to the innovation processes through the contribution to the organizational strategy, integrating the efforts towards the same direction. In the case of project management, the performance of project teams depends on the interpretation that each member makes of the common vision [22].

Finally, intelligent organizations generate group knowledge and take advantage of collective experience. Focusing efforts in the same direction allows ideas to be translated into actions, improving performance and organizational competitiveness [23]. Permanent dialogue stimulates the combination of ideas and the transformation of knowledge. The learning capacity depends on the socialization environment that is created within the organization [24]. Based on these reflections, the research hypotheses are proposed:

H1a: Systemic thinking is positively related to the development of learning capacity.

H1b: Personal mastery is positively related to the development of learning capacity.

H1c: Mental models are positively related to the development of learning capacity.

H1d: Shared vision is positively related to the development of learning capacity.

H1e: Team learning is positively related to the development of learning capacity.

Project management is characterized by being a discipline of high organizational impact, which allows facing the challenges of continuous improvement and development of competitiveness. Thus, project management has adopted many of the principles of administration, ceasing to be an exclusive area of engineering to become a transversal discipline that involves organizational, philosophical and human positions [25]. The strength of the projects lies in the achievement of results through a shared vision, framed in strategy, leadership, teamwork and a particular understanding of reality. Project management goes far beyond the application of a methodology or a tool; on the contrary, it should be understood as synonymous with development and the common good [26].

Effectiveness is defined as the balance between efficiency and efficacy. From the traditional approach to project management, efficiency is achieved through the correct management of resources, ensuring control of the three base variables: scope, time, cost [27]. On the other hand, efficacy is related to the achievement of the objectives set for the project and therefore with the creation of value for the different interest groups based on the results [28].

One of the key success factors of a project is the quality of the knowledge that can be accessed, this will ensure the quality of the process and the results, minimizing the probability of making errors throughout the project's life cycle [29]. The experience of the project manager and the members of the project teams becomes a valuable resource over time, with learning capacity being the differentiating factor that allows the appropriation of new and better skills [30].

The knowledge absorbed by an organization can be transformed into a quality asset that allows the achievement of the company's objectives [31]. For the specific case of project management, a quality asset must allow the generation of benefits, the optimization of costs, the reduction of risks or the creation of a competitive advantage. For this reason, organizational projects must be aligned with its strategy so that knowledge becomes a quality asset [32].

From the theory of dynamic capabilities, continuous learning is the most efficient mechanism that organizations have to generate innovation and mature their processes. Thus, two types of capabilities must be adopted: transformative, related to the ability of companies to absorb knowledge and adapt it to their real context; and configurational, associated with the ability of companies to take advantage of knowledge and link it with organizational and technological skills. Thus, project management can be understood as a new type of capacity that facilitates the transformation of the organization through knowledge [33]. Based on these reflections, the second research hypothesis is proposed. In addition, Fig. 1 shows the relationships between the identified variables and the research hypotheses:

H2: The learning capacity positively affects the effectiveness in the management of organizational projects.

Validating the relevance of applying a factor analysis model to the collected data requires calculating two indices: Kaiser Meyer Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett's test of sphericity.

The KMO compares the correlation coefficients, it is used to identify if the variables share common values. The results can vary between 0 and 1. Values between 0.5 and 1 indicate a high correlation of the data, this allows the development of a factor analysis model without any restrictions. The Bartlett index shows if the correlation matrix obtained is an identity matrix, this means a low data correlation, therefore factor analysis should not be applied. If the Bartlett index is close to 0, it will be feasible to apply a multivariate factor analysis. Table 2 shows the results obtained in this stage, for the five variables studied.

The results obtained in the KMO and Bartlett indices show a high correlation between the variables studied; This allows us to conclude that developing a factor analysis model is feasible. In the case of the KMO index, values greater than 0.8 were obtained. Regarding the Bartlett index, the values obtained are equal to 0.

In this stage, the degree of importance of each of the variables studied is calculated to determine which ones should be conserved. Therefore, the proportion of the global variance of each of the variables was calculated. The variance will be directly proportional to the importance of the variable. For this study, the Kaiser criterion was used, in this sense the result of the 5 variables studied was greater than 1, no variable was eliminated. Table 3 shows the results obtained in this stage.

Table 2

Variable	KMO	Bartlett
Systemic thinking	0,821	0,000
Personal mastery	0,856	0,000
Mental models	0,810	0,000
Shared vision	0,858	0,000
Team learning	0,877	0,000

Source: The authors based on the data collected.

Table 3

	Primary Values		Sum of squared charges of extraction
Variable	Kaiser Index	Variance	Total	Variance
Systemic thinking	3,424	11,841	3,424	11,841
Personal mastery	3,023	10,243
Mental models	2,879	8,586
Shared vision	2,742	6,966
Team learning	3,522	5,301

Source: The authors based on the data collected.

In this stage, the meaning of the variables was interpreted through the distribution of factors. The purpose of this step was to obtain a set of new variables with a lower number than the original one. For this study, the PROMAX rotation method was used, because the objective was to find the relationship between effectiveness in project management through the five identified variables. This procedure, like those of the two previous stages, was carried out with the SPSS software, thus validating the five selected variables.

Finally, the equations described by the variables identified in the theoretical framework were built. Using the SPSS software, the coefficients for each of the variables that explain learning capacity as a multidimensional variable were calculated. Then, in additional data processing, the coefficients that explain the latent variable effectiveness in the management of organizational projects through Learning capacity were calculated. The results obtained are presented below:

Due to the high correlation between the data collected through the survey, the coefficients that explain each of the five variables studied were calculated, integrating the data into an easier-to-handle equation: Eq (1) and (2). If the survey were applied again to another sample, the data collected could be directly replaced in these equations, obtaining an indicator for each of the factors studied.

As shown in eq. (1), Learning Capacity (LC) is strongly related to Systemic thinking (ST); Personal mastery (PM); Mental models (MM); Shared vision (SV), Team learning (TL). Similarly, Effectiveness in the Management of Organizational Projects (EMOP) shows a high correlation index with Learning Capacity (LC), Eq. (2).

Finally, based on the collected data, the Spearman index was calculated to carry out the respective validation of the formulated research hypotheses. The results obtained are presented below.

Hypothesis test 1a:

H0a: Systemic thinking is NOT positively related to the development of learning ability.

H1a: Systemic thinking is positively related to the development of learning capacity.

Table 4 shows the results obtained from Spearman's Rho test for hypothesis 1a. The correlation coefficient for the variables studied is 0.853, equivalent to a high relationship. On the other hand, the significance index is 0.020, less than 0.05. Therefore, with these results, the null hypothesis should be rejected and the alternative hypothesis accepted, validating that there is a positive correlation among Systemic thinking and Learning capacity.

Hypothesis test 1b:

H0b: Personal mastery is NOT positively related to the development of learning capacity.

H1b: Personal mastery is positively related to the development of learning capacity.

Table 4 shows the results obtained from Spearman's Rho test for hypothesis 1b. The correlation coefficient for the variables studied is 0.813, equivalent to a high relationship. On the other hand, the significance index is 0.027, less than 0.05. Therefore, with these results, the null hypothesis should be rejected and the alternative hypothesis accepted, validating that there is a positive correlation among Personal mastery and Learning capacity.

Hypothesis test 1c:

H0c: Mental models are NOT positively related to the development of learning capacity.

H1c: Mental models are positively related to the development of learning capacity.

Table 4 shows the results obtained from Spearman's Rho test for hypothesis 1c. The correlation coefficient for the variables studied is 0.827, equivalent to a high relationship. On the other hand, the significance index is 0.029, less than 0.05. Therefore, with these results, the null hypothesis should be rejected and the alternative hypothesis accepted, validating that there is a positive correlation among Mental models and Learning capacity.

Hypothesis test 1d:

H0d: Shared vision is NOT positively related to the development of learning capacity.

H1d: Shared vision is positively related to the development of learning capacity.

Table 4 shows the results obtained from Spearman's Rho test for hypothesis 1d. The correlation coefficient for the variables studied is 0.794, equivalent to a high relationship. On the other hand, the significance index is 0.025, less than 0.05. Therefore, with these results, the null hypothesis should be rejected and the alternative hypothesis accepted, validating that there is a positive correlation among Shared vision and Learning capacity.

Hypothesis test 1e:

H0e: Team learning is NOT positively related to the development of learning capacity.

H1e: Team learning is positively related to the development of learning capacity.

Table 4

	Learning capacity
Variable	* Correlation coefficient	Significance bilateral
Systemic thinking	0,853	0,020
Personal mastery	0,813	0,027
Mental models	0,827	0,029
Shared vision	0,794	0,025
Team learning	0,857	0,022

* The correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (bilateral)

Table 5

	Effectiveness in the management of organizational projects
Variable	* Correlation coefficient	Significance bilateral
Learning capacity	0,821	0,014

* The correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (bilateral)

Table 4 shows the results obtained from Spearman's Rho test for hypothesis 1e. The correlation coefficient for the variables studied is 0.857, equivalent to a high relationship. On the other hand, the significance index is 0.022, less than 0.05. Therefore, with these results, the null hypothesis should be rejected and the alternative hypothesis accepted, validating that there is a positive correlation among Team learning and Learning capacity.

Hypothesis test 2:

H0: Learning capacity is NOT positively related to effectiveness of organizational project management.

H2: Learning capacity is positively related to effectiveness of organizational project management.

Table 5 shows the results obtained from Spearman's Rho test for hypothesis 2. The correlation coefficient that explains the incidence of learning capacity and effectiveness in the management of organizational projects is 0.821, equivalent to a relationship high. On the other hand, the significance index is 0.014 less than 0.05. Therefore, with these results, the null hypothesis must be rejected and the alternative hypothesis accepted, validating that there is a positive correlation among Learning capacity and effectiveness of organizational project management.

Finally, Figs. 2 and 3 present an analysis of the data collected related to the perception of the project managers surveyed about the importance of learning capacity and the effectiveness achieved in the projects developed.

Fig. 2 shows that 90% of those surveyed consider that learning capacity is very important to achieve results in a project. In the comments delivered, the project managers highlight the importance of having experienced human talent to ensure the quality of the results. The question asked to those surveyed was: Do you think that the learning capacity of the work teams is important for the achievement the project results?

Figure 2 Source: The authors.

Figure 3 Source: The authors.

Fig. 3 shows that 91% of those surveyed completed their projects effectively: often, almost always, and always. This result coincides with the index of importance of learning ability obtained in the previous question. The question asked to those surveyed was: How often do the projects you have developed achieve the expected results in the planned time and with the assigned resources?