Effects between Information Sharing and Knowledge Formation and Their Impact on Complex Infrastructure Projects’ Performance
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Information and Knowledge in Complex Infrastructure Projects
2.2. IS, KO, KI and KF in Complex Infrastructure Projects
3. Research Hypotheses
3.1. IS and Project Performance
3.2. Mediating Role of KO in the IS-KI Relationship
3.3. Mediating Role of KI in the KO-KF Relationship
3.4. KF and Project Performance
3.5. Moderation Effect of Inter-Organizational Trust
4. Research Methodology
4.1. Sample and Procedures
4.2. Measurement
4.2.1. IS
4.2.2. KO
4.2.3. KI
4.2.4. KF
4.2.5. Inter-Organizational Trust
4.2.6. Project Performance
Construct and Item | References |
---|---|
Information sharing (IS) | |
IS1: We shared technical documents and project information with other stakeholders. | [52] |
IS2: We shared information from discussions with other stakeholders. | |
IS3: We had a culture of information sharing. | |
Knowledge formation (KF) | |
KF1: This project has facilitated several technological innovations. | [4,5,84] |
KF2: This project has developed new work procedures, methods, or improved pre-given methods. | |
KF3: A set of best practices have been innovated and applied to this project | |
Knowledge integration (KI) | |
KI1: We adopted an integrated approach to promote knowledge creation ability. | [85] |
KI2: We formed an effective synergy mechanism and integration platform with other stakeholders. | |
KI3: We effectively integrated the different sources of knowledge. | |
Knowledge organization (KO) | |
KO1: We had formal processes and methods to gain required knowledge. | [86] |
KO2: We have fully understood the expertise, capabilities, and knowledge of other partners. | |
KO3: We often reflected on work mistakes, summed up experiences, and improved work methods along with other stakeholders | |
KO4: We had a good document management system that allowed us to save and use knowledge. | [87] |
KO5 We regularly stored and updated knowledge obtained from our projects. | |
KO6: We classified and managed different types of knowledge from different sources. | |
KO7: We could quickly find and access the relevant stored knowledge. | |
Inter-organizational trust (GT) | |
GT1: This project owner executed fair contracts and agreements with us. | [61,88] |
GT2: We believed that other stakeholders considered our interests when making a major decision. | |
GT3: We believed that other stakeholders were honest and would fulfill their promises. | |
GT4: We believed that other stakeholders had the capacity to meet the technological and management requirements of the project. | |
Project performance (PP) | |
PP1: The project made good progress and was completed within the schedule. | [84,89] |
PP2: The project was completed within the budget owing to effective cost-control. | |
PP3: The response to changes in the project was timely. | |
PP4: The stakeholders had fulfilled their commitments and the final results were in line with the expected results. | |
PP5: Project stakeholders were likely to cooperate again with projects or other businesses. |
4.3. Data Analytical Procedures
5. Data Analysis and Findings
5.1. Common Method Bias
5.2. Evaluation of the Measurement Model
5.2.1. Convergent Validity
5.2.2. Discriminant Validity
5.2.3. Predictive Relevance
5.2.4. Goodness of Fit
5.2.5. R-Squared
5.3. Structural Model
5.3.1. Path Coefficient Tests
5.3.2. Mediating Effect Tests
6. Discussions and Conclusions
6.1. Theoretical Contributions and Practical Implications
6.2. Limitations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ghaleb, H.; Alhajlah, H.H.; bin Abdullah, A.A.; Kassem, M.A.; Al-Sharafi, M.A. A Scientometric Analysis and Systematic Literature Review for Construction Project Complexity. Buildings 2022, 12, 482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grafius, D.R.; Varga, L.; Jude, S. Infrastructure Interdependencies: Opportunities from Complexity. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2020, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Q.; Deng, X.; Hwang, B.G.; Yu, M. System Dynamics Approach of Knowledge Transfer from Projects to the Project-Based Organization. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2022, 15, 324–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quintane, E.; Casselman, R.M.; Reiche, B.S.; Nylund, P.A. Innovation as a Knowledge-Based Outcome. J. Knowl. Manag. 2011, 15, 928–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahern, T.; Leavy, B.; Byrne, P.J. Knowledge Formation and Learning in the Management of Projects: A Problem Solving Perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 1423–1431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carrillo, P.; Robinson, H.; Al-Ghassani, A.; Anumba, C. Knowledge Management in UK Construction: Strategies, Resources and Barriers. Proj. Manag. J. 2004, 35, 46–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tampio, K.-P.; Haapasalo, H. Organising Methods Enabling Integration for Value Creation in Complex Projects. Constr. Innov. 2022. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hietajärvi, A.M.; Aaltonen, K.; Haapasalo, H. Managing Integration in Infrastructure Alliance Projects: Dynamics of Integration Mechanisms. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2017, 10, 5–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gasik, S. A Model of Project Knowledge Management. Proj. Manag. J. 2011, 42, 23–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Moraes, A.T.; da Silva, L.F.; de Oliveira, P.S.G. Systematization of Absorptive Capacity Microprocesses for Knowledge Identification in Project Management. J. Knowl. Manag. 2020, 24, 2195–2216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindvall, M.; Rus, I.; Suman Sinha, S. Software Systems Support for Knowledge Management. J. Knowl. Manag. 2003, 7, 137–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yang, X.; Yu, M.; Zhu, F. Impact of Project Planning on Knowledge Integration in Construction Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2020, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdul-Jalal, H.; Toulson, P.; Tweed, D. Knowledge Sharing Success for Sustaining Organizational Competitive Advantage. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2013, 7, 150–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hjørland, B. What Is Knowledge Organization (KO)? Knowl. Organ. 2008, 35, 86–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grant, R.M. Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 1996, 17, 109–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kabir, N. A Semantic Knowledge Management System Framework for Knowledge Integration From Mobile Devices. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Intangibles and Intellectual Capital, Cartagena, Spain, April 2014; pp. 157–164. [Google Scholar]
- Hong, D.; Zhang, Y. An Exploration of Knowledge Integration: A Comprehensive View of Media Characteristics and Integration Capability. In Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS), Chengdu, China, 24–28 June 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, L.; Müller, R.; Zhu, F.; Liu, H. Choosing Suitable Project Control Modes to Improve the Knowledge Integration under Different Uncertainties. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2019, 37, 896–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yalcinkaya, M.; Singh, V. A Visual Transactive Memory System Approach Towards Project Information Management. In Proceedings of the 33rd CIB W78 Conference, Brisbane, Australia, 31 October–2 November 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Shahid, S.; Froese, T. Project Management Information Control Systems. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 1998, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eweje, J.; Turner, R.; Müller, R. Maximizing Strategic Value from Megaprojects: The Influence of Information-Feed on Decision-Making by the Project Manager. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2012, 30, 639–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Teixeira, L.; Xambre, A.R.; Figueiredo, J.; Alvelos, H. Analysis and Design of a Project Management Information System: Practical Case in a Consulting Company. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2016, 100, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ackoff, R.L. From Data to Wisdom. J. Appl. Syst. Anal. 1989, 16, 3–9. [Google Scholar]
- Kurtoğlu, Y. The Knowledge Factor, the Components and the Innovatıons. Int. Rev. Manag. Bus. Res. 2016, 5, 214–224. [Google Scholar]
- Robinson, H.S.; Carrillo, P.M.; Anumba, C.J.; Al-Ghassani, A.M. Knowledge Management Practices in Large Construction Organisations. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2005, 12, 431–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bektas, E.; Heintz, J.; Wamelink, H.A. A Review of Knowledge Management in Collaborative Design: The Necessity of Project Knowledge Integration in Large Scale Building Projects. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Innovation in Architecture, Engineering and Construction; Loughborough University: Antalya, Turkey, 2008; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Enberg, C.; Lindkvist, L.; Tell, F. Knowledge Integration at the Edge of Technology: On Teamwork and Complexity in New Turbine Development. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2010, 28, 756–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bendoly, E. System Dynamics Understanding in Projects: Information Sharing, Psychological Safety, and Performance Effects. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2014, 23, 1352–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kawamura, T.M.; Takano, K. Factors Affecting the Project Performance of Information Systems Development-Comparison of Organizational Cultures. In Proceedings of the 21st Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, APSEC, Jeju, Korea, 1–4 December 2014; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
- Lai, L.L.; Taylor, A.G. Knowledge Organization in Knowledge Management Systems of Global Consulting Firms. Cat. Classif. Q. 2011, 49, 387–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snowden, D. Complex Acts of Knowing: Paradox and Descriptive Self-Awareness. J. Knowl. Manag. 2002, 6, 100–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lindkvist, L.; Soderlund, J.; Tell, F. Managing Product Development Projects: On the Significance of Fountains and Deadlines. Organ. Stud. 1998, 19, 931–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mahanty, S.; Stacey, N.; Holland, P.; Wright, A.; Menzies, S. Learning to Learn: Designing Monitoring Plans in the Pacific Islands International Waters Project. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2007, 50, 392–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Emiliano de Souza, D.; Favoretto, C.; Carvalho, M.M. Knowledge Management, Absorptive and Dynamic Capacities and Project Success: A Review and Framework. EMJ—Eng. Manag. J. 2022, 34, 50–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.-Y.; Chong, H.-Y. Influence of Prior Ties on Trust and Contract Functions for BIM-Enabled EPC Megaproject Performance. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2021, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mesmer-Magnus, J.R.; DeChurch, L.A. Information Sharing and Team Performance: A Meta-Analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 535–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Nonaka, I.; Takeuchi, H. The Knowledge-Creating Company; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Huesemann, S. Information Sharing across Multiple Humanitarian Organizations—A Web-Based Information Exchange Platform for Project Reporting. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2006, 7, 277–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, T.M.; Maxwell, T.A. Information-Sharing in Public Organizations: A Literature Review of Interpersonal, Intra-Organizational and Inter-Organizational Success Factors. Gov. Inf. Q. 2011, 28, 164–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koskinen, K.U.; Pihlanto, P.; Vanharanta, H. Tacit Knowledge Acquisition and Sharing in a Project Work Context. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2003, 21, 281–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maurer, I. How to Build Trust in Inter-Organizational Projects: The Impact of Project Staffing and Project Rewards on the Formation of Trust, Knowledge Acquisition and Product Innovation. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2010, 28, 629–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kogut, B.; Zander, U. Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology. Organ. Sci. 1992, 3, 383–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inkpen, A.C.; Dinur, A. Knowledge Management Processes and International Joint Ventures. Organ. Sci. 1998, 9, 454–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- von Krogh, G. The Communal Resource and Information Systems. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2002, 11, 85–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Todorović, M.L.; Petrović, D.T.; Mihić, M.M.; Obradović, V.L.; Bushuyev, S.D. Project Success Analysis Framework: A Knowledge-Based Approach in Project Management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 772–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, L.; Le, Y. A Study of the Knowledge Management of Large and Complicated Group Projects. J. Converg. Inf. Technol. 2012, 7, 562–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yasin, F.; Egbu, C. Critical Steps to Knowledge Mapping in Facilities Management Organisation. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference, ARCOM, Bristol, UK, 5–7 September 2011; Association of Researchers in Construction Management: Bristol, UK, 2011; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
- Beck, R.; Rai, A.; Fischbach, K.; Keil, M. Untangling Knowledge Creation and Knowledge Integration in Enterprise Wikis. J. Bus. Econ. 2015, 85, 389–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bao, Z.; Zhou, T. The Strategy of Knowledge Management and Knowledge Creation. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Information Management, Innovation Management and Industrial Engineering, ICIII, Kunming, China, 26–28 November 2010; Volume 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindkvist, L. Knowledge Integration in Product Development Projects: A Contingency Framework. In The Oxford Handbook of Project Management; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, J.C.; Newell, S. Knowledge Integration Processes and Dynamics within the Context of Cross-Functional Projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2003, 21, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, J. Knowledge Integration and Innovation: Securing New Product Advantage in High Technology Industry. J. High Technol. Manag. Res. 2005, 16, 121–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, K.H.; Park, J.W. Process-Centered Knowledge Model and Enterprise Ontology for the Development of Knowledge Management System. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009, 36, 7441–7447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahern, T. The Development of Project Management Capability in Complex Organisational Settings: Towards A Knowledge-Based View; Dublin City University: Dublin, Ireland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Kreiner, K. Tacit Knowledge Management: The Role of Artifacts. J. Knowl. Manag. 2002, 6, 112–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hilmersson, Y.; Lindell, T. Knowledge Integration in Inter-Organizational Collaborations: A Case Study at Saab AB. Master’s Thesis, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Engwall, M. The Futile Dream for the Perfect Goal. In Beyond Project Management: New Perspectives on the Temporary–Permanent Dilemma; Sahlin-Andersson, K., Söderholm, A., Eds.; Liber Abstrakt Copenhagen Business School Press: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2002; pp. 261–277. [Google Scholar]
- Pollack, C.V. New Oral Anticoagulants in the ED Setting: A Review. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2012, 30, 2046–2054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reich, B.H.; Gemino, A.; Sauer, C. Knowledge Management and Project-Based Knowledge in It Projects: A Model and Preliminary Empirical Results. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2012, 30, 663–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, J.T.; Xie, I.; Narayan, B.; Abdi, E.S.; Wu, H.; Lui, Y.H.; Westbrook, L. Vulnerable Communities in the Digital Age: Advancing Research and Exploring Collaborations. In Proceedings of the Iconference, Wuhan, China, 22–25 March 2017; pp. 911–914. [Google Scholar]
- Rousseau, D.M.; Sitkin, S.B.; Burt, R.S.; Camerer, C. Not so Different after All: A Cross-Discipline View of Trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Omale, S.A. Impact Assessment of Inter-Organizational Trust on Virtual Organizations Performance in Nigerian Service Firms. Int. Bus. Manag. 2016, 12, 6–9. [Google Scholar]
- Panteli, N.; Sockalingam, S. Trust and Conflict within Virtual Inter-Organizational Alliances: A Framework for Facilitating Knowledge Sharing. Decis. Support Syst. 2005, 39, 599–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Q.; Yin, Z.; Chong, H.-Y.; Shi, Q. Nexus of Interorganizational Trust, Principled Negotiation, and Joint Action for Improved Cost Performance: Survey of Chinese Megaprojects. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zaheer, A.; McEvily, B.; Perrone, V. Does Trust Matter? Exploring the Effects of Interorganizational and Interpersonal Trust on Performance. Organ. Sci. 1998, 9, 123–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chow, W.S.; Chan, L.S. Social Network, Social Trust and Shared Goals in Organizational Knowledge Sharing. Inf. Manag. 2008, 45, 458–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sohn, J.H.D. Social Knowledge as a Control System: A Proposition and Evidence from the Japanese FDI Behavior. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 1994, 25, 295–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.-Y.; Chong, H.-Y.; Liao, P.-C.; Wang, X. Critical Review of Social Network Analysis Applications in Complex Project Management. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Baccarini, D. The Concept of Project Complexity—A Review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 1996, 14, 201–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; Organ, D.W. Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects. J. Manag. 1986, 12, 531–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaubroeck, J.M.; Hannah, S.T.; Avolio, B.J.; Kozlowski, S.W.J.; Lord, R.G.; Treviño, L.K.; Dimotakis, N.; Peng, A.C. Embedding Ethical Leadership within and across Organization Levels. Acad. Manag. J. 2012, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xue, J.; Shen, G.Q.; Yang, R.J.; Zafar, I.; Ekanayake, E.M.A.C. Dynamic Network Analysis of Stakeholder Conflicts in Megaprojects: Sixteen-Year Case of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2020, 146, 04020103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hyejung, L.E.E.; Park, J.; Jungwoo, L.E.E. Role of Leadership Competencies and Team Social Capital in It Services. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 2013, 53, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alavi, M.; Leidner, D.E. Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Q. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2001, 25, 107–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cepeda-Carrion, I.; Martelo-Landroguez, S.; Leal-Rodríguez, A.L.; Leal-Millán, A. Critical Processes of Knowledge Management: An Approach toward the Creation of Customer Value. Eur. Res. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2017, 23, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Klessova, S.; Thomas, C.; Engell, S. Structuring Inter-Organizational R&D Projects: Towards a Better Understanding of the Project Architecture as an Interplay between Activity Coordination and Knowledge Integration. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2020, 38, 291–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rauniar, R.; Rawski, G.; Morgan, S.; Mishra, S. Knowledge Integration in IPPD Project: Role of Shared Project Mission, Mutual Trust, and Mutual Influence. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2019, 37, 239–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hargadon, A.B.; Bechky, B.A. When Collections of Creatives Become Creative Collectives: A Field Study of Problem Solving at Work. Organ. Sci. 2006, 17, 484–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fong, P.S.W. Knowledge Creation in Multidisciplinary Project Teams: An Empirical Study of the Processes and Their Dynamic Interrelationships. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2003, 21, 479–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adenfelt, M.; Lagerström, K. Enabling Knowledge Creation and Sharing in Transnational Projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2006, 24, 191–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poppo, L.; Zenger, T. Do Formal Contracts and Relational Governance Function as Substitutes or Complements? Strateg. Manag. J. 2002, 23, 707–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reich, B.H.; Gemino, A.; Sauer, C. How Knowledge Management Impacts Performance in Projects: An Empirical Study. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 590–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, L.R.; Huang, C.F.; Hsu, T.J. Knowledge Leadership to Improve Project and Organizational Performance. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 40–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collins, C.J.; Smith, K.G. Knowledge Exchange and Combination: The Role of Human Resource Practices in the Performance of High-Technology Firms. Acad. Manag. J. 2006, 49, 544–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yeh, J.H.; Chang, J.Y.; Oyang, Y.J. Content and Knowledge Management in a Digital Library and Museum. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2000, 51, 371–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, S.H.; Fei, W.C.; Chen, C.C. Knowledge Sharing, Absorptive Capacity, and Innovation Capability: An Empirical Study of Taiwan’s Knowledge-Intensive Industries. J. Inf. Sci. 2007, 33, 340–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Şengün, A.E.; Nazli Wasti, S. Revisiting Trust and Control: Effects on Perceived Relationship Performance. Int. Small Bus. J. 2009, 27, 39–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, R.L.; Smith, H.J.; Iacovou, C.L. The Linkage between Reporting Quality and Performance in IS Projects. Inf. Manag. 2007, 44, 196–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernroider, E.W.N.; Wong, C.W.Y.; Lai, K. hung. From Dynamic Capabilities to ERP Enabled Business Improvements: The Mediating Effect of the Implementation Project. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 350–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, W.W. How to Write Up and Report PLS Analyses. In Handbook of Partial Least Squares; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 655–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, H.; Saraf, N.; Hu, Q.; Xue, Y. Assimilation of Enterprise Systems: The Effect of Institutional Pressures and the Mediating Role of Top Management. MIS Q. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2007, 31, 59–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palanski, M.E.; Kahai, S.S.; Yammarino, F.J. Team Virtues and Performance: An Examination of Transparency, Behavioral Integrity, and Trust. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 99, 201–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bock, G.W.; Zmud, R.W.; Kim, Y.G.; Lee, J.N. Behavioral Intention Formation in Knowledge Sharing: Examining the Roles of Extrinsic Motivators, Social-Psychological Forces, and Organizational Climate. MIS Q. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2005, 29, 87–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geisser, S. A Predictive Approach to the Random Effect Model. Biometrika 1974, 61, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stone, M. Cross-Validatory Choice and Assessment of Statistical Predictions (With Discussion). J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Methodol. 1976, 38, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chinn, W.W. The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modelling. Mod. Methods Bus. Res. 1998, 29, 295–336. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, X.; Lynch, J.G.; Chen, Q. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis. J. Consum. Res. 2010, 37, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacKinnon, D.P.; Fritz, M.S.; Williams, J.; Lockwood, C.M. Distribution of the Product Confidence Limits for the Indirect Effect: Program PRODCLIN. Behav. Res. Methods 2007, 39, 384–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Henseler, J.; Fassott, G. Testing Moderating Effects in PLS Path Models: An Illustration of Available Procedures. In Handbook of Partial Least Squares; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindner, F.; Wald, A. Success Factors of Knowledge Management in Temporary Organizations. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2011, 29, 877–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonzalez, R.V.D. Innovative Performance of Project Teams: The Role of Organizational Structure and Knowledge-Based Dynamic Capability. J. Knowl. Manag. 2022, 26, 1164–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlile, P.R. Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge across Boundaries. Organ. Sci. 2004, 15, 555–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cheung, S.O.; Yiu, T.W.; Lam, M.C. Interweaving Trust and Communication with Project Performance. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, 169–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeVries, R. The Role of Trust in Creating Sustainable Change through Interorganizational Collaborations in Health Care Education; University of Minnesota: Minnesota, MN, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Garcia, A.J.; Mollaoglu, S. Measuring Key Knowledge-Related Factors for Individuals in AEC Project Teams. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2020, 146, 04020063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, K.; Su, Y.; Pollack, J.; Liang, H.; Zhang, S. Explaining the Formation Mechanism of Intrateam Knowledge Exchange Network in Offsite Construction Projects: A Social Cognitive Perspective. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2022, 148, 04021192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Item | Indicators | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Project organization | Owners | 21 | 8.9 |
Contractors | 152 | 65 | |
Others | 61 | 26.1 | |
Age | Under 30 years | 125 | 53.4 |
30–40 years | 70 | 30 | |
40–50 years | 31 | 13.2 | |
50–60 years | 8 | 3.4 | |
Above 60 years | 0 | 0 | |
Years of work | Under 5 years | 104 | 44.4 |
5–10 years | 63 | 27 | |
10–15 years | 29 | 12.4 | |
15–20 | 25 | 10.7 | |
above 20 years | 13 | 5.5 | |
Position | Company directors | 6 | 2.6 |
Project managers | 15 | 6.4 | |
Department heads | 91 | 38.9 | |
Project engineers | 112 | 47.8 | |
Others | 10 | 4.3 | |
Project category | Bridge | 32 | 13.7 |
highway/road | 134 | 57.3 | |
Railway | 43 | 18.4 | |
other mixed-development projects | 25 | 10.6 |
Path | Substantive Factor Loading (R1) | R12 | Path | Method Factor Loading (R2) | R22 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
IS -> IS1 | 0.957 *** | 0.915 | METHOD -> IS1 | −0.059 | 0.004 |
IS -> IS2 | 0.997 *** | 0.995 | METHOD -> IS2 | −0.162 * | 0.026 |
IS -> IS3 | 0.708 *** | 0.502 | METHOD -> IS3 | 0.211 *** | 0.045 |
KF -> KF1 | 0.874 *** | 0.764 | METHOD -> KF1 | −0.056 | 0.003 |
KF -> KF2 | 0.806 *** | 0.649 | METHOD -> KF2 | 0.069 | 0.005 |
KF -> KF3 | 0.874 *** | 0.764 | METHOD -> KF3 | −0.017 | 0.000 |
KI -> KI1 | 0.884 *** | 0.781 | METHOD -> KI1 | 0.029 | 0.001 |
KI -> KI2 | 1.078 *** | 1.163 | METHOD -> KI2 | −0.223 ** | 0.050 |
KI -> KI3 | 0.710 *** | 0.504 | METHOD -> KI3 | 0.189 * | 0.036 |
KO -> KO1 | 1.017 *** | 1.034 | METHOD -> KO1 | −0.267 * | 0.071 |
KO -> KO2 | 0.773 *** | 0.598 | METHOD -> KO2 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
KO -> KO3 | 0.911 *** | 0.829 | METHOD -> KO3 | −0.121 | 0.015 |
KO -> KO4 | 0.645 *** | 0.416 | METHOD -> KO4 | 0.221 * | 0.049 |
KO -> KO5 | 0.815 *** | 0.664 | METHOD -> KO5 | 0.034 | 0.001 |
KO -> KO6 | 0.884 *** | 0.782 | METHOD -> KO6 | −0.024 | 0.001 |
KO -> KO7 | 0.710 *** | 0.504 | METHOD -> KO7 | 0.117 | 0.014 |
GT -> GT1 | 0.678 *** | 0.459 | METHOD -> GT1 | 0.189 * | 0.036 |
GT -> GT2 | 0.996 *** | 0.993 | METHOD -> GT2 | −0.153 * | 0.023 |
GT -> GT3 | 0.987 *** | 0.974 | METHOD -> GT3 | −0.184 | 0.034 |
GT -> GT4 | 0.779 *** | 0.607 | METHOD -> GT4 | 0.127 | 0.016 |
PP -> PP1 | 0.602 *** | 0.362 | METHOD -> PP1 | 0.218 * | 0.047 |
PP -> PP2 | 0.936 *** | 0.876 | METHOD -> PP2 | −0.183 ** | 0.034 |
PP -> PP3 | 0.854 *** | 0.729 | METHOD -> PP3 | −0.016 | 0.000 |
PP -> PP4 | 0.778 *** | 0.606 | METHOD -> PP4 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
PP -> PP5 | 0.839 *** | 0.705 | METHOD -> PP5 | −0.017 | 0.000 |
Average | 0.727 | Average | 0.020 |
Construct and Item | Outer Loadings | AVE | CR | Cronbach’s Alpha |
---|---|---|---|---|
Information sharing (IS) | 0.782 | 0.915 | 0.861 | |
IS1 | 0.908 | |||
IS2 | 0.860 | |||
IS3 | 0.885 | |||
Knowledge formation (KF) | 0.722 | 0.886 | 0.809 | |
KF1 | 0.823 | |||
KF2 | 0.869 | |||
KF3 | 0.856 | |||
Knowledge integration (KI) | 0.800 | 0.923 | 0.875 | |
KI1 | 0.913 | |||
KI2 | 0.885 | |||
KI3 | 0.884 | |||
Knowledge organization (KO) | 0.669 | 0.934 | 0.917 | |
KO1 | 0.772 | |||
KO2 | 0.775 | |||
KO3 | 0.798 | |||
KO4 | 0.848 | |||
KO5 | 0.848 | |||
KO6 | 0.862 | |||
KO7 | 0.819 | |||
Inter-organizational trust (GT) | 0.732 | 0.916 | 0.878 | |
GT1 | 0.850 | |||
GT2 | 0.862 | |||
GT3 | 0.816 | |||
GT4 | 0.894 | |||
Project performance (PP) | 0.644 | 0.900 | 0.862 | |
PP1 | 0.769 | |||
PP2 | 0.782 | |||
PP3 | 0.836 | |||
PP4 | 0.834 | |||
PP5 | 0.790 |
GT | IS | KF | KI | KM | PP | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GT | 0.803 | |||||
IS | 0.781 | 0.884 | ||||
KF | 0.576 | 0.390 | 0.767 | |||
KI | 0.861 | 0.713 | 0.674 | 0.838 | ||
KO | 0.886 | 0.829 | 0.565 | 0.843 | 0.784 | |
PP | 0.792 | 0.576 | 0.763 | 0.604 | 0.619 | 0.745 |
CV-Redundancy | Communality | R2 | |
---|---|---|---|
IS | - | 0.676 | - |
KF | 0.228 | 0.589 | 0.454 |
KI | 0.498 | 0.702 | 0.859 |
KO | 0.446 | 0.615 | 0.840 |
PP | 0.305 | 0.555 | 0.685 |
Average | 0.627 | 0.710 |
Hypothesis | Path | Path Coefficient (β) | Standard Deviation (STDEV) | T Statistics (|O/STDEV|) | p Values |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
IS -> KI | −0.014 | 0.070 | 0.193 | 0. 847 | |
IS -> KO | 0.388 | 0.058 | 6.686 | 0.000 | |
H1 | IS -> PP | 0.320 | 0.053 | 6.113 | 0.000 |
H4 | KF -> PP | 0.541 | 0.055 | 9.846 | 0.000 |
KI -> KF | 0.538 | 0.088 | 6.065 | 0.000 | |
KO -> KF | 0.078 | 0.092 | 0.850 | 0.396 | |
KO -> KI | 0.450 | 0.075 | 5.926 | 0.000 |
Hypothesis | Effects | Product of Coefficients | 95% BCa Confidence Interval | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Point Estimate | p Values | Lower | Upper | ||
H2 | a1b1(via KO) | 0.175 | 0.000 | 0.106 | 0.257 |
H3 | b1a2(via KI) | 0.242 | 0.000 | 0.135 | 0.382 |
H5 | Total indirect effect = a1c2b2 + a1b1a2b2 + c1a2b2 (via KO, KI and KF) | 0.063 | 0.008 | 0.020 | 0.131 |
Hypothesis | Path | Path Coefficient (β) | Standard Deviation (STDEV) | T Statistics (|O/STDEV|) | p Values |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
H6 | IS*GT -> KO | −0.083 | 0.045 | 1.856 | 0.064 |
H7 | KO*GT -> KI | 0.214 | 0.033 | 6.587 | 0.000 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Li, Q.; Lee, C.-Y.; Jin, H.; Chong, H.-Y. Effects between Information Sharing and Knowledge Formation and Their Impact on Complex Infrastructure Projects’ Performance. Buildings 2022, 12, 1201. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081201
Li Q, Lee C-Y, Jin H, Chong H-Y. Effects between Information Sharing and Knowledge Formation and Their Impact on Complex Infrastructure Projects’ Performance. Buildings. 2022; 12(8):1201. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081201
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Qian, Cen-Ying Lee, Hao Jin, and Heap-Yih Chong. 2022. "Effects between Information Sharing and Knowledge Formation and Their Impact on Complex Infrastructure Projects’ Performance" Buildings 12, no. 8: 1201. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081201