Study on the Factors Influencing and Mechanisms Shaping the Institutional Resilience of Mega Railway Construction Projects

Abstract

With mega railway construction projects (MRCPs) facing various natural disasters and extremely difficult engineering construction tasks, there is an urgent need to improve the resilience management capability of engineering construction to cope with complex and changing internal and external risks. As a key element of the construction management system, the level of institutional resilience directly determines the adaptability of the construction system in the face of crisis. However, the research on the influencing factors and the formation mechanism of institutional resilience is slightly insufficient. Therefore, this paper defines the connotation of institutional resilience in MRCPs on the basis of existing research. Secondly, it codes authoritative journals and expert interview reports related to MRCPs in China by applying a rooting theory. Finally, the paper analyses the formation mechanism of institutional resilience based on an Interpretative Structural Modeling and proposes strategies to enhance it. The results show that the institutional environment is the fundamental influencing factor, institutional implementation, institutional supervision, institutional guarantee and institutional feedback are the direct influencing factors, and institutional stakeholders and institutional design are indirect influencing factors. The mechanism of interaction between the institution and the institutional environment, the mechanism of interaction between the institution and the institutional stakeholders, the mechanism of generation of institutional rules and the mechanism of operation of institutional rules work together to generate institutional resilience. This paper, as an exploratory study on institutional resilience in the field of engineering management, has sorted out the ideas for the subsequent research on institutional resilience in this field and provided the directions for project managers of MRCPs to improve their institutional systems.

1. Introduction

MRCPs often undertake extremely difficult construction tasks and face difficulties such as a huge project scale, an extremely long construction period, an exceptionally complex engineering structure, numerous parties involved and long decision-making chains [1]. At the same time, the uncertainty and complexity of the project exacerbate the difficulty of risk management in the construction process [2]. Therefore, the existing railway construction management institution has obvious incompatibilities in terms of institutional design, institutional implementation, institutional supervision, institutional protection and institutional feedback to the special situation of MRCPs, which are manifested in the following problems. Firstly, institutional rules cannot describe all the contingencies that arise from the interaction of complex environments and challenging engineering tasks. Secondly, the extraordinarily long construction period meant that the initial institutional system was difficult to adapt to the management needs of the various stages in the full construction cycle. Thirdly, an excessively long decision-making chain leads to communication and coordination conflicts at multiple management levels, which affects the effectiveness of the management institution. Fourthly, the established management institution is derived from traditional railway construction management experience and lacks management institution innovation for MRCPs.

In response to the problems of management institutions, it is urgent to optimize the management system, mechanism and methods of MRCPs and to ensure construction safety through innovative management institutions [3]. The existing management institution system for railway construction should be optimized under the guidance of national and industry standards, and advanced management techniques and methods should be actively researched. At the same time, the management institution system should be continuously improved to achieve management objectives by combining the characteristics of MRCPs [4]. Creating a scientific and rational engineering and construction management system at a “humane” level, integrating homogeneous and heterogeneous strengths and resources, stimulating the strengths and potential of stakeholders, and developing the ability to manage complex issues are considered effective ways to solve major engineering complexity challenges [5].

This paper introduces the concept of resilience on the basis of the research of institutional systems in the field of engineering management, defines the institutional resilience of MRCPs, sorts out the key influencing factors and explores its formation mechanism. Applying the resilience theory to the engineering management system is conducive to improving the overall resilience capacity of the management system, preventing the explicit and implicit risks brought about by dangerous engineering environment and arduous engineering tasks, resolving shocks and conflicts, and is of great significance to the sustainable and stable implementation of engineering construction activities.

2. Institution and Institutional Resilience of Mega Railway Construction Projects

2.1. The Definition of Institution for Mega Railway Construction Projects

An institution, derived from the Latin instituere, is a conventional behavior composed of rules, norms and common strategies [6]. The “Modern Chinese Dictionary” explains that the system is not only “the procedures and codes of conduct that everyone is required to abide by” but also “a political, economic, and cultural system formed under certain historical conditions”. Institution-related research has focused on the following connotations. First, in the study of institutions as rules, institutions are regarded as rules, especially formal political and legal rules [7,8,9,10]. Second, the study of institutions as organizational routines considers that the establishment and institutionalization of institutions derives from the routines of organizations that have been developed over time through collaborative processes. Therefore, the organizational institutions, methods and elements are the cornerstones of the institutional system, and their effective implementation and maintenance must be based on the existence and operation of the organization, and the institutional norms are implemented as a result of organizational guarantees [11,12,13,14,15]. Third, in the study of institutions as structures, institutions are considered to be “patterns of human behaviour that have been established over time”, i.e., formal and informal constraints that influence individual and collective behavior and decision-making [16,17,18].

In the field of management, systems are generally regarded as a management tool for organizations and institutions, the basis on which management mechanisms, management principles and methods are followed, and the guarantee of a smooth process of social reproduction [19]. A reasonable management institution can simplify the management process and improve management efficiency [20]. Combined with the special context of MRCPs, the institutions studied in this paper have the following characteristics. Firstly, the institution herein is based on an organizational routine. Secondly, the scope of application of the institution is primarily at the project level. Thirdly, the institution is a robust system of specific management rules, routine and standards that are self-sufficient in the face of complex engineering tasks and hazardous project environments. Fourthly, the institution is guaranteed by the stakeholders and its effectiveness is achieved by the joint efforts of the designers, implementers, supervisors and the audience. In this paper, the institution refers to the system of organizational conduct norms created or confirmed by the employers in combination with the existing experience of engineering construction management, which stipulates the rights and obligations of each stakeholder in the project or specifies the division of powers and responsibilities, based on formal contracts, linked by informal relations and guaranteed by institutional stakeholders. This paper lists the differences in the connotations and characteristics of the institutions for the different subjects studied, as shown in

Table 1. Definitions and characteristics of the institutions in different research objects.

Research Subject	Concept of Institution	Characteristics of Institution
Legal Articles	Institutions are regarded as rules, especially formal political and legal rules [7,8,9,10].	Rules
Organizational Norms	Institutions are considered to be routines that emerge from a long-term collaborative process within the organization [11,12,13,14,15].	Organizational Routines
Political System	Institutions are considered to be “patterns of human behaviour that have been established over time” [16,17,18].	Structures
Institution for Mega Railway Construction Projects	Institution refers to the system of organizational conduct norms created or confirmed by the employers in combination with the existing experience of engineering construction management.	Specific Management Rules
		Routines
		Standards

.

2.2. Institutional Resilience of Mega Railway Construction Projects

The word resilience is originally derived from the Latin words “resilire” and “resilio”, which mean to rebound [21]. The term resilience was first used in mechanics in 1858 by Scottish engineer William J. M. Rankine [22]. The subsequent prevalence of the concept of resilience is attributed to the theoretical work of the ecologist Holling in the 1970s [23]. Resilience moved from the field of mechanics to that of ecology, completing the first cognitive shift. Since then, the idea of resilience has begun to be integrated into various fields of study. In the late 1980s, resilience theory became popular in the field of psychology [24,25,26]. In the late 1990s, resilience made the transition from natural ecology to human ecology and was noticed by scholars in the fields of sociology [27,28], economics [29,30] and management [31,32]. Resilience theory has undergone a second cognitive shift from ecology to the simultaneous development of various disciplines [33]. Table 2 shows the different connotations and characteristics of the concept of resilience in key areas. Figure 1 is a schematic representation of the evolution of the term resilience.

Table 2. The definitions and characteristics of resilience in different fields of study.

Key Research Areas	Concept of Resilience	Characteristics of Resilience
Mechanics	Resilience represents the strength and ductility of the steel beam [22].	Strength of matter
		Ductility of matter
Ecology	Resilience is a measure of the persistence of a system and its ability to absorb change and disturbance and maintain equilibrium [23].	System properties
		System persistence
		System balance
Psychology	Resilience is the ability of the human spirit to recover from trauma and is particularly used in dealing with children’s mental health problems [34,35].	Post-trauma recovery
Economics	Resilience depends on effective governments and other effective institutions which, through different mechanisms, sustain multiple economic outcomes [36].	Comparable mechanisms
		Effective feedback mechanisms
		The coupling of a stimulus and response
		A diversity of resources
Sociology	Resilience emphasizes the system stability and is considered to be the ability to adapt to extreme environments [37].	System stability
		Adaptability to extreme environments
Management	Managing the capacity of social-ecological systems to respond, adapt and shape change [33,38,39].	Adaptive governance
		The ability to renew, reorganize and develop

Table 2. The definitions and characteristics of resilience in different fields of study.

Key Research Areas	Concept of Resilience	Characteristics of Resilience
Mechanics	Resilience represents the strength and ductility of the steel beam [22].	Strength of matter
		Ductility of matter
Ecology	Resilience is a measure of the persistence of a system and its ability to absorb change and disturbance and maintain equilibrium [23].	System properties
		System persistence
		System balance
Psychology	Resilience is the ability of the human spirit to recover from trauma and is particularly used in dealing with children’s mental health problems [34,35].	Post-trauma recovery
Economics	Resilience depends on effective governments and other effective institutions which, through different mechanisms, sustain multiple economic outcomes [36].	Comparable mechanisms
		Effective feedback mechanisms
		The coupling of a stimulus and response
		A diversity of resources
Sociology	Resilience emphasizes the system stability and is considered to be the ability to adapt to extreme environments [37].	System stability
		Adaptability to extreme environments
Management	Managing the capacity of social-ecological systems to respond, adapt and shape change [33,38,39].	Adaptive governance
		The ability to renew, reorganize and develop

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the evolution of the term “resilience” (author’s adaptation of the literature [40]).

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the evolution of the term “resilience” (author’s adaptation of the literature [40]).

In the field of public management, institutions serve as a guarantee for the robust functioning of organizations or systems [41]. Building resilience capacity has become the latest concept in social systems research and is a hot topic at the forefront of resilient cities and resilient communities research [42,43,44]. Early institutional resilience emphasizes the homeostasis of the institutional system within the system, which is seen as the rules that govern organizational behavior [45]. Resilience is reflected in emergency planning and rescue and recovery, through the development of emergency management measures and the design of emergency mechanisms to deal with the shocks brought about by emergencies. Based on the existing results of resilience theory, most scholars have proposed a multi-dimensional framework for resilient community emergency governance, and proposed strategies to improve resilience capacity [46,47]. The importance of institutional resilience in a resilient management framework has become increasingly evident in both resilient cities and resilient communities. Many scholars have therefore identified institutional resilience as an important dimension in measuring the level of resilience of a city or community [48,49,50,51]. Infrastructure resilience, institutional resilience, economic resilience and social resilience are considered to be the components of urban resilience. Institutional resilience is closely related to the urban management systems, which ensures the orderly running of the sub-systems. Since the 1990s, with the introduction of the concept of resilience into social–ecological systems, scholars have argued that systems may exist in multiple equilibrium states and that the external environment determines the transformation of the system between multiple steady states. At this time, the concept of institutional resilience places greater emphasis on the adaptability of the institutional system in the face of changes, and the core is the flexibility of organizational rules under disturbance. Institutional resilience is now developing rapidly in areas such as disaster management. Most scholars advocate that resilience capacity should not just be reactive to external shocks, but proactively change, adapt and optimize in response to changes in the internal and external environment [52]. The more continuity there is in the design and arrangement of the institution, the more resilient the system and the more effective emergency governance will be. In summary, this study argues that the connotation of system resilience refers to the ability of the management system to continuously amend and improve in the face of internal and external crises in order to achieve a dynamic adaptation of the engineering and construction system to the environment.

3. Analysis of Factors Influencing Institutional Resilience Based on Rootedness Theory

The institutional resilience of MRCPs is a dynamic and complex concept, and single statistical research techniques tend to miss qualitative data and implicit details. Iteration and deduction of qualitative material based on rooting theory can illustrate, clarify and systematize institutional resilience [53]. Therefore, this study collects qualitative materials based on Semi-structured Field Interviews (SFIs), incorporates the connotation of institutional resilience and adopts the Root Theory research method to construct a model to extract the factors influencing institutional resilience.

3.1. Data Collection

In order to effectively screen the factors influencing the institutional resilience, and based on the principle of selecting the largest sample that can provide the greatest amount of information, the selection of interviewees had to meet the following requirements. (1) The interviewees were all managers with experience in MRCPs, including departmental leaders, project managers and heads of research projects. (2) To ensure the quality of the interviews, the interviewees were all members of the subject group. (3) The interviews were used for academic research only and anonymously, and the interviewees did not have to worry about revealing project secrets and deliberately avoiding questions. The basic information from the interviewees is shown in

Table 3. Statistics on the background information of the sample.

Sampling Classification of Samples	Categories	Number of People	Proportion
Type of Unit	Employers	24	38.1
	Contractors	24	38.1
	Scientific research institution	15	23.8
Job Position	Departmental leaders	22	34.9
	Project managers	15	23.8
	Heads of research projects	26	41.3
Education Level	Undergraduate	20	31.7
	Master’s degree	23	36.5
	Ph.D.	20	31.8
Years of Experience	4–6	8	12.7
	7–9	18	28.6
	≥10	37	58.7

.

The author researched engineering construction sites many times, adopted semi-structured interviews as the method of data collection, closely focused on the theme of “factors influencing institutional resilience of MRCP”, followed the logic of context introduction-core interview-in-depth interview and explored the interviewees’ perceptions and understanding of the factors influencing institutional resilience. The interview questions were set as shown in

Table 4. A stratified set of interview questions.

Question Level	Type of Question	Title 3	Title 4
First layer	Edge-type issues	1. Based on your experience, how important do you think institutions are to project management?	Help interviewees understand the connotations and extensions of institutional resilience and guide them into the interview
		2. Do you think that the standing regime is sufficient to be able to deal with construction emergencies in mountain railway projects?
Second layer	Theme-based questions	3. What do you think is the main content of the existing institutional system of this project? What are the characteristics of the system?	Accessing the manifestations and dynamics of institutional resilience in construction projects
Third level	Extended questions	4. Do you think the existing institutions of the project are reasonable? Is the implementation effective? What are the reasons that affect the effectiveness of the institution in practice?	Collection of institutional resilience factors affecting railway construction projects

.

The data were collected over a period of 17 months. During this period the author conducted several seminars with interviewees related to railway engineering construction projects based on the questions listed in the interview outline and the actual situation on site, and collated the audio and video recordings into textual materials to form a total of 40 interview memoranda. Of these, 30 random copies were selected for coding and the remaining 10 were used for theoretical saturation tests.

3.2. Data Analysis

In response to the collated interview transcripts, the paper used the software Nvivo 11 to code and analyze the primary data, taking into account the naming and definition of institutional influences in the established literature.

3.2.1. Open Coding

Open coding is the process of conceptualizing and categorizing key phenomena in the primary sources through a line-by-line analysis and constant comparison. In this paper, 65 initial concepts were extracted from the collated interview transcripts, while the initial concepts with similar expressions were merged to form the final 36 categories.

3.2.2. Spindle Coding

According to the inter-relationship and logical order of different categories, similar categories are grouped together to sort out the logic between categories and find the main categories. In this paper, we used the coding function of Nvivo11 to categorize the 36 conceptual categories obtained, and finally obtain 20 main categories.

3.2.3. Selective Encoding

The core of selective coding is to explore the core categories from the existing main categories and explore the logical relationship between the main categories and the sub-categories, so as to elaborate the whole phenomenon or event in the form of a story line. In this paper, based on the 36 main categories that were screened, 20 core categories were finally categorized based on a selective coding step. The core categories and their definitions of the factors influencing institutional resilience are shown in the

Table 5. Main category examples.

Main Category	Subcategory	Conceptualization
Institutional Design	$A_1$ Scientific rationality of institutional rules	$a_1$ High quality of institutional designers
		$a_2$ The system is designed to meet the practical needs of construction
	$A_2$ Clarity of institutional rules	$a_3$ The content of the institution determines the specific work of the stakeholders
		$a_4$ The content of the institution determines the responsibilities of stakeholders
	$A_3$ Integrity of institutional rules	$a_5$ Clear quality management objectives
		$a_6$ A comprehensive quality management guarantee system
	$A_4$ Feasibility of institutional rules	$a_7$ Extensive experience in railway construction management
		$a_8$ Industry-wide strengths
		$a_9$ Fully integrated with the actual site conditions
	$A_5$ Forward-looking institutional rules	$a_{10}$ A strong foundation in management theory
		$a_{11}$ Management innovation
	$A_6$ Adaptability of institutional rules	$a_{12}$ Matching situational needs through institutional iteration
	$A_7$ Complementarity of institutional rules	$a_{13}$ Key leaders are responsible for safety at the highest level of risk work sites
		$a_{14}$ Engineering teams monitor each other’s construction safety
Institutional Running	$A_8$ Effectiveness of institutional implementation	$a_{15}$ Score the credibility of the company based on the performance of the institution
	$A_9$ Effectiveness of institutional supervision	$a_{16}$ Professional supervisory organizations
		$a_{17}$ Multi-level, multi-dimensional inspection mechanism
	$A_{10}$ Institutional organization guarantee capacity	$a_{18}$ High-level engineering construction team
		$a_{19}$ High-level construction management team
	$A_{11}$ Institutional resource guarantee capacity	$a_{20}$ Economic and non-economic resources
	$A_{12}$ The evaluation effect of the institution	$a_{21}$ Scientific and rigorous assessment mechanisms
		$a_{22}$ Industry expert review
	$A_{13}$ Dynamic institutional revision capability	$a_{23}$ Feedback mechanism for institutional issues
		$a_{24}$ Institutional clearance mechanisms
		$a_{25}$ Dynamic adjustment mechanism
Institutional Stakeholders	$A_{14}$ Concept of institutional stakeholder	$a_{26}$ Risk prevention and control atmosphere
	$A_{15}$ Quality of institutional executor	$a_{27}$ Responsible attitude of institutional executors
		$a_{28}$ Ability of institutional executors to strictly enforce the institution
	$A_{16}$ Quality of institutional designer	$a_{29}$ Ability of institutional supervisors to strictly manage institutional performance
Institutional Environment	$A_{17}$ Natural environment	$a_{30}$ High level of uncertainty
		$a_{31}$ High level of complexity
	$A_{18}$ Project environment	$a_{32}$ Stakeholder synergy mechanisms within the project
		$a_{33}$ Synergistic mechanism between the railway and local government
		$a_{34}$ Synergistic mechanism between science and technology innovation and engineering construction
	$A_{19}$ Industry environment	$a_{35}$ A new national mechanism that brings together the outstanding railway companies and experts from across the industry to participate in the construction of the project
	$A_{20}$ Cultural environment	$a_{36}$ The spirit of railway construction

. The remaining 10 interview transcripts were subsequently coded independently, and no new concepts or categories were introduced in the process, satisfying the requirements of the theoretical saturation test.

On the basis of the four major categories and the intrinsic links between the categories obtained in the previous section, a theoretical model of the causes of institutional resilience was constructed, as shown in Figure 2.

3.3. Model Building

A five-point Richter scale was used to determine the strength of influence between factors, which was divided into five levels: “very strong”, “strong”, “average”, “weak” and “no influence”, corresponding to values of 4, 3, 2, 1 and 0. The direct influence matrix $M$ was determined by the expert scoring, $M={\left(a_{ij}\right)}_{n\times n}$, where $a_{ij}$ represents the influence of factor $i$ on factor $j$. The direct influence matrix M is shown in

Table 6. Direct influence matrix of factors influencing institutional resilience.

$M$	$A_1$	$A_2$	$A_3$	$A_4$	$A_5$	$A_6$	$A_7$	$A_8$	$A_9$	$A_{10}$	$A_{11}$	$A_{12}$	$A_{13}$	$A_{14}$	$A_{15}$	$A_{16}$	$A_{17}$	$A_{18}$	$A_{19}$	$A_{20}$
$A_1$	0	4	4	4	4	4	4	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
$A_2$	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	4	0	0	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
$A_3$	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	3	4	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
$A_4$	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	4	0	0	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
$A_5$	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
$A_6$	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	3	0	0	4	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
$A_7$	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	4	0	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
$A_8$	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
$A_9$	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
$A_{10}$	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
$A_{11}$	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
$A_{12}$	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
$A_{13}$	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
$A_{14}$	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	4	0	0	0	0
$A_{15}$	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	4	0	0	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
$A_{16}$	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
$A_{17}$	2	0	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	3	3	0	0	0	0
$A_{18}$	4	0	3	0	4	0	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	2	2	0	0	0	0
$A_{19}$	4	4	0	3	0	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	4	4	0	0	0	0
$A_{20}$	2	0	0	4	0	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	2	2	0	0	0	0

.

The direct impact matrix $M$ is normalized to give the normalized impact matrix $N$.

$$N=\frac{M}{\underset{1\le i\le n}{\max }{\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^n{a}_{ij}}}$$

where $M={\left(a_{ij}\right)}_{n\times n}$ is the row and maximum value.

On the basis of the normalized direct influence matrix and considering the indirect influence relationship of each factor, the integrated influence matrix $T={\left(t_{ij}\right)}_{n\times n}$ is calculated using the following formula.

$$T=N\ast {(I-N)}^{-1}$$

where T is the unit matrix.

The combined influence matrix T only reflects the inter-relationship between factors and the degree of influence, and does not take into account the influence of the factors on themselves. The overall impact matrix $Z={\left(z_{ij}\right)}_{n\times n}$ is obtained from the following formula.

$$Z=T+I$$

The accessible matrix R is obtained according to the following equation and the results of the calculation are shown in

Table 7. Accessible matrix of factors influencing institutional resilience.

$R$	$A_1$	$A_2$	$A_3$	$A_4$	$A_5$	$A_6$	$A_7$	$A_8$	$A_9$	$A_{10}$	$A_{11}$	$A_{12}$	$A_{13}$	$A_{14}$	$A_{15}$	$A_{16}$	$A_{17}$	$A_{18}$	$A_{19}$	$A_{20}$
$A_1$	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
$A_2$	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
$A_3$	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
$A_4$	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
$A_5$	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
$A_6$	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
$A_7$	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
$A_8$	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
$A_9$	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
$A_{10}$	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
$A_{11}$	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
$A_{12}$	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
$A_{13}$	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
$A_{14}$	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	0	0
$A_{15}$	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0
$A_{16}$	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
$A_{17}$	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	0	0	0
$A_{18}$	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	0
$A_{19}$	1	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	1	0
$A_{20}$	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	0	1

.

$$r_{\mathit{ij}}=\left\{\begin{array}{l}1, Z_{\mathit{ij}}\ge 0.12\\ 0, Z_{\mathit{ij}}<0.12\end{array}\right.$$

where $r_{ij}$ is the element in the reachable matrix; setting a threshold value of 0.12 enables the filtering of weaker influence relations, simplifying the system structure and making the multi-level recursive structure clearer.

Based on the accessible matrix analysis, we can find the reachable set $P\left(A_i\right)$ for each factor, i.e., the set of all factors that can be reached from factor $A_i$. The prior set $Q\left(A_i\right)$, i.e., the set of all factors that can be reached from factor $A_i$; the set $L_i$ of factors that intersect $P$ and $Q$ is then found. The results are shown in

Table 8. Table of reachable sets P and prior sets Q and their intersections L.

${\mathit{A}}_{\mathit{i}}$	P	Q	L = P ∩ Q
$A_1$	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7	1, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20	1
$A_2$	2, 8, 9, 12	1, 2, 16, 19	2
$A_3$	3, 8, 9, 10, 11	1, 3, 16, 17, 18	3
$A_4$	4, 8, 9, 12	1, 4, 16, 19, 20	4
$A_5$	5, 13	1, 5, 16, 18	5
$A_6$	6, 8, 9, 12, 13	1, 6, 16, 19, 20	6
$A_7$	7, 10, 11, 13	1, 7, 16, 18	7
$A_8$	8	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 15	8
$A_9$	9	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 15	9
$A_{10}$	10	1, 3, 7, 10	10
$A_{11}$	11	1, 3, 7, 11	11
$A_{12}$	12	1, 2, 4, 6, 12, 15	12
$A_{13}$	13	1, 5, 6, 7, 13	13
$A_{14}$	1, 14, 15, 16	14, 17, 18, 19, 20	14
$A_{15}$	8, 9, 12, 15	14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20	15
$A_{16}$	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 16	14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20	16
$A_{17}$	1, 3, 14, 15, 16, 17	17	17
$A_{18}$	1, 3, 5, 7, 14, 15, 16, 18	18	18
$A_{19}$	1, 2, 4, 6, 14, 15, 16, 19	19	19
$A_{20}$	1, 4, 6, 14, 15, 16, 20	20	20

.

We stratify the institutional resilience influences according to $L=P\cap Q.$ The first identified set of factors $L_i$ is located at the top level of the structural model, then the rows and columns corresponding to the factors in $L_i$ are removed from the original accessible matrix P to obtain the new matrix. The same operation is performed on the new matrix to determine the next top-level factors of the structural model. Repeat the above steps to obtain all levels of the structural model, $L_1=\left\{8,9,10,11,12,\left.13\right\}\right.$; $L_2=\left\{2,3,4,5,\left.6,7\right\}\right.$; $L_3=\left\{\left.1\right\}\right.;$ $L_4=\left\{\left.15,16\right\};\right.$ $L_4=\left\{\left.14\right\}\right.;$ $L_5=\left\{\left.\mathrm{17,18,19},20\right\}\right.$. Based on the above calculations and analysis, a model of the formation mechanism of the factors influencing institutional resilience is constructed, as shown in the Figure 3.

4. Results

This paper composes a logical hierarchy of factors based on a model of an institutional resilience formation mechanism, and at the same time constructs an evolutionary model of institutional resilience in conjunction with a theoretical model of the causes of institutional resilience. The results are shown in Figure 4. The institutional environment, as an external influence, has a fundamental role in influencing institutional resilience and is an underlying factor. Institutional design and institutional stakeholders are internal influences and have an indirect effect on institutional resilience. The running of the institution (institutional implementation, institutional supervision, institutional guarantee and institutional feedback) is a direct influence on institutional resilience, and its running effectiveness is the most direct indication of the institutional resilience of the construction management institution system. It is easy to see that institutional resilience is formed through the interaction of the construction management institutional system, the institutional environment and engineering construction. The next part of this paper will detail how the interaction of the three influences the formation and evolution of resilience.

5. Discussion

5.1. Mechanisms of Interaction between the Institution and the Institutional Environment

Institutional environment refers to the external conditions for the generation, implementation and change of railway engineering construction management system, including natural environment, project environment, industry environment and cultural environment. First, the institutional environment provides the basic space for institution generation, implementation and change. In the process of institution generation and running of MRCPs, the explicit and implicit risks brought about by the extremely complex natural environment need to be fully considered. Therefore, this paper integrates the concept of resilience management into the process of system design in order to cope with soft shocks, hard shocks and mixed shocks brought about by multiple high-energy natural environments and to ensure that engineering construction activities can be carried out stably. Second, the institutional environment influences the generation and running of institutions by affecting the behavior of institutional stakeholders. The institutional environment shapes the different needs and understanding of the institution by the institutional stakeholders. As a result, there are significant differences in institutional needs between regions. In addition, cultural differences can lead to different understandings of the same specific institution by participating organizations, and this difference can also be reflected in various aspects of the formation and running of institutional rules, and may even affect the embodiment of institutional resilience. Thirdly, major changes in the institutional environment will inevitably have a fundamental shock to the institutional system, stimulating resilience capacity and inducing institutional change. Changes in the institutional environment will inevitably lead to a maladaptation of institutional rules, triggering potential risks or even bringing about dangerous events, and will therefore force the institutional system to modify and improve, stimulating the adaptive capacity of institutional resilience.

5.2. Mechanisms of Interaction between the Institution and Institutional Stakeholders

Institutional stakeholders are not only an important influence on institutional resilience, but also the most dynamic of them. On the one hand, as a norm that binds and guides organizations, institutions are generated by people, implemented by people and act on specific groups of people. Not only in the field of management, but in any field, institutions are made effective by the interaction of institutional stakeholders, without which there is no way to talk about institutional effectiveness and institutional resilience. On the other hand, the most direct manifestation of institutional resilience is human initiative, which is reflected in the various stages of institutional design, implementation and change. In the process of system design, the system designer generates specific system rules based on the system environment to achieve a specific purpose, and his or her concept and system design ability determine the characteristics of the generated system rules and indirectly affect the cultivation of system rule resilience. In the link of institutional implementation, the dynamism of the institutional executor can fully stimulate the resilience of the institution, and through the reasonable use of institutional discretion, appropriately coordinate various management institutions to deal with various contingencies faced in the process of construction, to achieve the adaptability of institutional resilience and ensure the stable development of construction activities. Institutional change is one of the most important aspects of institutional resilience. Any institution that is created will inevitably have its own limitations, and as the environment changes, the institution will often become inappropriate to the institutional environment. The ability of institutional stakeholders to accurately identify this situation and make reasonable innovations is particularly important. An institution that conflicts with its environment will not only be ineffective, but may also create risks for the project. An innovative institution, however, will not only be better adapted to the environment, but, more importantly, will also improve the overall efficiency of the project.

5.3. Institutional Rule Generation Mechanisms

The design of the institution determines whether the institution is rational and scientific, and has an important impact on the generation of resilience during the operation of the institution. The scientific rationality, clarity, completeness and complementarity of institutional rules ensure that the design objectives of the institution can be achieved in the process of institutional operation, while foresight and adaptability are the expression of institutional resilience. The formulation of any institutional rules is based on the prevailing environment and situation, and is likely to become inappropriate as the internal and external environment changes. In the process of institutional design, the concept of resilience is introduced to fully take into account the uncertainty and complexity of the environment and the characteristics of construction projects. At the early stage of institution formation, appropriate discretion is reserved for the implementation of institutional rules, and an adequate revision process is designed for institutional rule changes to adapt to the changing institutional environment.

5.4. Institutional Rules Operating Mechanisms

The operational aspects of the institution include institutional implementation, institutional supervision, institutional guarantee and institutional feedback, which are the most direct influencing factors on the formation of institutional resilience, and also determine the degree of resilience of the institutional system. The effectiveness of institutional implementation and institutional supervision is the basis of institutional resilience. The institution cannot be resilient if it does not give full play to its effectiveness. The institutional guarantee is the support for the resilience of the institution, and the organization and resources play a vital role in stimulating and cultivating resilience. Adequate human resources and abundant material resources are necessary for the generation of institutional resilience. Institutional feedback is a way of generating institutional resilience. Stimulated by shocks and adversity, feedback mechanisms are used to promote institutional revision and improvement in order to achieve a stable functioning of the system.

6. Conclusions and Outlook

6.1. Research Conclusions

The findings of this paper indicate that the institutional environment, institutional stakeholders, institutional design and institutional running (institutional implementation, institutional supervision, institutional guarantee and institutional feedback) have a significant impact on institutional resilience, and the logical relationship between the factors can be divided into three levels. Among them, institutional implementation, institutional supervision, institutional guarantee and institutional feedback are located at the first level, institutional stakeholders and institutional design at the second level, and institutional environment at the third level. On this basis, this paper constructs an evolutionary model of institutional resilience and systematically elaborates the evolutionary mechanism of institutional resilience.

6.2. Research Suggestions

Based on the key influencing factors of institutional resilience and its formation mechanism, combined with the evolution model of institutional resilience, this paper proposes strategies to strengthen institutional resilience from the internal (institutional design, institutional operation and institutional stakeholders) and external (institutional environment) aspects of the institutional system, in order to improve the ability of the engineering construction system to resist shocks.

6.2.1. Institutional Design

According to the mechanism and evolutionary model of institutional resilience, the first step in fostering resilience occurs in the institutional design process. The scientific soundness, consistency, integrity, feasibility, foresight, adaptability and complementarity of the institutions are the key influencing factors that affect the resilience of the institutional design process. It is therefore important to carry out an expert review of these key features before the institution is released. Strengthening the pre-release assessment mechanism and scientifically predicting the costs and potential risks of running the institution will help to improve the adaptability of the institution to the project.

6.2.2. Institutional Running

First, the running of the institution is the key aspect that best demonstrates its resilience. Effective supervision mechanisms must be established in the process of institutional running to strengthen the process control and guarantee the legal and compliant implementation of the institutions. The owner, as the executor of the institution, is a unity of responsibilities and rights, while it bears the corresponding legal and moral responsibility for the implementation of the institution. The projects should clarify the responsibility for institutional implementation and increase the sense of mission, responsibility and crisis for the implementation of the institution. At the same time, the project should establish a mechanism of executor responsibility, target responsibility and position responsibility, and strengthen the penalties for non-compliance, and hold violators severely accountable.

Second, the evaluation of institutional effectiveness is used as a basis for accountability and motivation, leading to a shift in institutional resilience from a focus on results to a balance of “process and results”. Regular and irregular measurements, self-evaluations and independent evaluations by consultants of the institutional designers, executors and supervisors of mega railway construction projects form a mechanism to optimize the system based on the results of the effectiveness evaluation, summarize applicable and efficient solutions and successful experiences, and review the problems and weaknesses in the running of the system. Based on the concept of “increasing efficient solutions, improving weak links and correcting wrong problems”, the institutional designers and executors make corresponding adjustments and improvements and develop consolidation, strengthening and improvement measures. This creates a self-perpetuating institutional optimization mechanism and promotes the continuous improvement of institutional resilience learning.

6.2.3. Institutional Stakeholders

It is important to establish a comprehensive, multi-level collaborative institutional system with the government as the guide, owner as the core, and designers, constructors and supervisors as the main stakeholders. The effectiveness of the institution relies on the cooperation of key stakeholders, such as the government and owner, to form a synergy of project stakeholders. The central government acts as the top strategic decision-making platform for projects and is responsible for the major strategic decisions on major railway projects, as well as the role of industry environmental coordination, addressing major cross-industry, cross-sector and cross-province coordination issues in the construction process. The industry platform acts as the project’s environment builder, responsible for planning strategic objectives, coordinating major issues and allocating quality resources. The local government, in the role of maintaining a stable relationship between the railway construction and the local area, is responsible for coordinating local matters. The project platform, with the owner at the core, takes overall responsibility for the implementation of construction tasks using the institution as a guideline. Other stakeholders should strengthen their own institutional understanding and cooperation, and actively cooperate with the owner’s institutional implementation activities.

6.2.4. Institutional Environment

Harmonizing the environment in which the institution is executed is fundamental to enhancing the resilience and adaptability of the institution. Construction systems interact constantly with, and are constrained and influenced by, their environment. These environmental factors manifest themselves through natural disasters, engineering, technological accumulation and spirituality as the natural environment, project environment, industry environment and cultural environment. Harmonizing the institutional system with nature, projects, industries and cultures is key to increasing the resilience of the institution. The external institutional environment is closely linked to institutional implementation activities, with a constant exchange of material, energy and information that affects the process and outcome of institutional implementation. For this reason, it is all the more important to fully understand and analyze the changing external institutional environment, and to conduct institutional implementation activities in a rational manner in order to effectively achieve institutional objectives and foster institutional resilience.

6.3. Research Shortcomings and Outlook

The shortcomings of the study are as follows. Firstly, as an exploratory study of institutional resilience in the field of engineering management, this paper systematically sorts out its influencing factors and formation mechanisms. However, there are significant differences in MRCPs in different regions, and the relevant research on institutional resilience for typical regions needs to be further developed and explored. Secondly, this paper focuses on exploring the connotations and extensions of institutional resilience. Future research could further explore the measurement of institutional resilience and use empirical analysis to determine the level of resilience of construction projects and provide a basis for improving resilience.