Unpacking the “Black Box”: Understanding the Effect of Strength of Ties on Inter-Team Conflict and Project Success in Megaprojects
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Research Background
2.1. Strength of Ties
2.2. Inter-Team Conflict
2.3. Project Success
3. Theoretical Model and Hypotheses
3.1. Theoretical Model
3.2. Research Hypotheses
3.2.1. Strong Ties and Inter-Team Conflict
3.2.2. Weak Ties and Inter-Team Conflict
3.2.3. Inter-Team Conflict and Project Success
3.2.4. Strength of Ties and Project Success
4. Method
4.1. Questionnaire Development
4.2. Pilot Test
4.3. Data Collection
4.4. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
5. Model Test
5.1. SEM Test
5.2. Mediating Effect Test
6. Discussions
6.1. Strength of Ties and Inter-Team Conflict
6.2. Strength of Ties and Project Success
6.3. Inter-Team Conflict’s Effects
7. Implications
7.1. Theoretical Implications
7.2. Practical Implications
8. Conclusions
9. Limitations and Future Work
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ma, L.; Fu, H. A governance framework for the sustainable delivery of megaprojects: The interaction of megaproject citizenship behavior and contracts. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2022, 148, 04022004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.; Cao, J.; Wu, G.; Zhao, X.; Zuo, J. How does network position influence project performance in Chinese megaprojects? An inter-organizational conflict-based perspective. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 2022, 33, 448–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, Y.; Liu, B.; Li, Y. Collaboration Networks and Bidding Competitiveness in Megaprojects. J. Manag. Eng. 2021, 37, 04021064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, T.; Chan, A.P.; He, Q.; Xu, J. Identifying the gaps in construction megaproject management research: A bibliographic analysis. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2020, 22, 1585–1596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, L.L., Jr.; Polkinghorn, B. Managing conflict in construction megaprojects: Leadership and third-party principles. Confl. Resolut. Q. 2008, 26, 167–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Denicol, J.; Davies, A.; Krystallis, I. What are the causes and cures of poor megaproject performance? A systematic literature review and research agenda. Proj. Manag. J. 2020, 51, 328–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.; Cao, J.; Wu, G.; Zhao, X.; Zuo, J. Interenterprise collaboration network in international construction projects: Evidence from Chinese construction enterprises. J. Manag. Eng. 2022, 38, 05021018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, G.; Zhou, K.; Wang, D.; Wu, G.; Xie, J. Tensions in governing megaprojects: How different types of ties shape project relationship quality? Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2021, 39, 799–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, D.; Li, H.; Wang, G.; Luo, X.; Tan, D. Relationship network structure and organizational competitiveness: Evidence from BIM implementation practices in the construction industry. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34, 04018005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, Z.; Wu, G.; Zhao, X.; Zuo, J.; Wen, S. How does the strength of ties influence relationship quality in Chinese megaprojects? The mediating role of contractual flexibility. Balt. J. Manag. 2021, 16, 366–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, G.; Li, H.; Wu, C.; Hu, Z. How different strengths of ties impact project performance in megaprojects: The mediating role of trust. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2020, 13, 889–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Wu, G.; Liu, C.; Zhao, X.; Zuo, J. Investigating the relationship between communication-conflict interaction and project success among construction project teams. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1466–1482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Granovetter, M.S. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 1973, 78, 1360–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Badir, Y.F.; O’Connor, G.C. The formation of tie strength in a strategic alliance’s first new product development project: The influence of project and partners’ characteristics. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2015, 32, 154–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.; Cao, J.; Duan, K.; Wu, G. Effect of network position on inter-team conflict and project success in megaprojects. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2022; ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evald, M.R.; Klyver, K.I.M.; Svendsen, S.G. The changing importance of the strength of ties throughout the entrepreneurial process. J. Enterprising Cult. 2006, 14, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Um, K.H.; Oh, J.Y. The mediating effects of cognitive conflict and affective conflict on the relationship between new product development task uncertainty and performance. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2021, 39, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, L.; Zhou, F.; Leung, K. Effects of task and relationship conflicts on individual work behaviors. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 2011, 22, 131–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bell, M.A. The effects of substantive and affective conflict in problem-solving groups. Commun. Monogr. 1974, 41, 19–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Dreu, C.K.; Van Vianen, A.E. Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. J. Organ. Behav. 2001, 22, 309–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alasfour, F.S.; Mirzal, A. Impact of project management on project success at engineering firms in Kuwait. Int. J. Proj. Manag. Product. Assess. 2021, 9, 68–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prabhakar, G.P. What is project success: A literature review. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2008, 3, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Imam, H. Roles of shared leadership, autonomy, and knowledge sharing in construction project success. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2021, 147, 04021067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angus, G.Y.; Flett, P.D.; Bowers, J.A. Developing a value-centred proposal for assessing project success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2005, 23, 428–436. [Google Scholar]
- He, Q.; Wang, T.; Chan, A.P.; Li, H.; Chen, Y. Identifying the gaps in project success research: A mixed bibliographic and bibliometric analysis. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2019, 26, 1553–1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serrador, P.; Turner, R. The relationship between project success and project efficiency. Proj. Manag. J. 2015, 46, 30–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryde, D.J. Methods for managing different perspectives of project success. Br. J. Manag. 2005, 16, 119–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ilgen, D.R.; Hollenbeck, J.R.; Johnson, M.; Jundt, D. Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annu. Revis. Psychol. 2005, 56, 517–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wu, G.; Zheng, J.; Zhao, X.; Zuo, J. How different strengths of ties influence project performance in Chinese megaproject? A conflict-based perspective. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 2020, 31, 753–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Wit, F.R.; Jehn, K.A.; Scheepers, D. Task conflict, information processing, and decision-making: The damaging effect of relationship conflict. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2013, 122, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lau, R.S.; Cobb, A.T. Understanding the connections between relationship conflict and performance: The intervening roles of trust and exchange. J. Organ. Behav. 2010, 31, 898–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tidd, S.T.; McIntyre, H.H.; Friedman, R.A. The importance of role ambiguity and trust in conflict perception: Unpacking the task conflict to relationship conflict linkage. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 2004, 15, 364–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simons, T.L.; Peterson, R.S. Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. J. Appl. Psychol. 2000, 85, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Puck, J.; Pregernig, U. The effect of task conflict and cooperation on performance of teams: Are the results similar for different task types? Eur. Manag. J. 2014, 32, 870–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, K.; Cho, B. Competing hypotheses analyses of the associations between group task conflict and group relationship conflict. J. Organ. Behav. 2011, 32, 1106–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peter, J.P. Reliability: A review of psychometric basics and recent marketing practices. J. Mark. Res. 1979, 16, 6–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Havitz, M.E.; Dimanche, F. Leisure involvement revisited: Conceptual conundrums and measurement advances. J. Leis. Res. 1997, 29, 245–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaiser, H.F. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 1974, 39, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flynn, B.B.; Huo, B.; Zhao, X. The impact of supply chain integration on performance: A contingency and configuration approach. J. Oper. Manag. 2010, 28, 58–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pesämaa, O.; Larsson, J.; Eriksson, P.E. Role of performance feedback on process performance in construction projects: Client and contractor perspectives. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34, 04018023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 2004, 36, 717–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Park, H.; Han, S.H.; Rojas, E.M.; Son, J.; Jung, W. Social network analysis of collaborative ventures for overseas construction projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2011, 137, 344–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variables | Items | References |
---|---|---|
Strong Tie | Formal communication between teams lasts for many years | |
Informal communication between teams lasts for many years | Hu et al., 2021 [10]; Evald et al., 2006 [17]; Wu et al., 2020 [11] | |
Formal communication between teams is very frequent | ||
Informal communication between teams is very frequent | ||
Communication between teams involves knowledge and management | ||
Collaboration between teams is beneficial to both parties | ||
Weak Tie | Formal communication between teams is uncommon | |
Informal communication between teams is uncommon | ||
The team has invested a lot of capital resources to keep the collaborative relationship | ||
Inter-team communication is limited to technology and projects | ||
Project participating teams monitor each other’s actions | ||
Relationship-related Conflict | There is tension between teams | |
There is animosity between teams There is disharmony between teams There are numerous emotional clashes between teams | ||
There are numerous disagreements between teams | Liu et al., 2022 [2]; Lu et al., 2011 [19]; De and Van, 2001 [21]; de et al., 2013 [31] | |
During communication, teams do not respect each other’s feelings | ||
Different teams have various management philosophies | ||
Different teams have various interest demands | ||
Task-related Conflict | Teams frequently disagree on the content of tasks | |
Teams frequently disagree on how to achieve project objectives Power distribution is viewed differently by different teams Different teams have different ideas about how responsibility should be distributed | ||
Teams have differing perspectives on project resource allocation | ||
Teams have different perspectives on work difficulties | ||
Project Success | The project meets three goals: quality, cost, and duration | Wu et al. (2019) [13]; Prabhakar (2008) [23]; Imam (2021) [24]; Angus et al., (2005) [25] |
The project’s resource utilization efficiency is high | ||
Project teams gain new skills and experience | ||
The level of trust between teams has increased The effectiveness and results of inter-team cooperation are favorable | ||
The project has received positive feedback from the public | ||
The project management is excellent | ||
The teams are pleased with the project’s implementation process and outcomes | ||
The teams are eager to work together again in the future |
Characteristic | Category | Number | % |
---|---|---|---|
Project type | Infrastructure project | 110 | 35.7 |
Industrial project | 82 | 26.9 | |
Public project | 114 | 37.4 | |
Job position | Project engineer | 118 | 38.5 |
Department manager | 69 | 22.7 | |
Professional manager Manager | 89 | 29.2 | |
Project manager | 30 | 9.6 | |
Work experience | <5 years | 38 | 12.4 |
5–10 years | 79 | 25.8 | |
11–15 years | 101 | 32.6 | |
16–20 years | 51 | 16.8 | |
>20 years | 37 | 12.4 | |
Project party | Owner team | 65 | 21.2 |
Contractor team | 84 | 27.5 | |
Design team | 61 | 19.8 | |
Consulting team | 55 | 18.1 | |
Supervision team | 32 | 10.3 | |
Supplier team | 9 | 3.2 |
Category | Coefficient | Critical Ratio | S.E. | p Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
ST→TC | 0.172 * | 2.209 | 0.042 | 0.017 |
ST→RC | −0.117 * | −2.271 | 0.037 | 0.013 |
WT→TC | 0.670 * | 2.332 | 0.029 | 0.016 |
WT→RC | 0.263 *** | 5.058 | 0.030 | 0.000 |
TC→PS | 0.125 ** | 2.616 | 0.052 | 0.007 |
RC→PS | −0.261 *** | −4.820 | 0.064 | 0.000 |
ST→PS | 0.127 * | 2.586 | 0.051 | 0.004 |
WT→PS | 0.159 * | 2.194 | 0.036 | 0.025 |
Fit indices | GFI = 0.95; NFI = 0.93; IFI = 0.91 |
Hypothesis | Hypothesis Decision |
---|---|
H1a. Strong ties positively impact task-related conflict | H1a: Supported |
H1b. Strong ties negatively impact relationship-related conflict | H1b: Supported |
H2a. Weak ties have a positive impact on task-related conflict | H2a: Supported |
H2b. Weak ties have a positive impact on relationship-related conflict | H2b: Supported |
H3a. Task-related conflict positively impacts megaproject success | H3a: Supported |
H3b. Relationship-related conflict negatively impacts megaproject success | H3b: Supported |
H4a. Strong ties positively impact megaproject success | H4a: Supported |
H4b. Weak ties positively impact megaproject success | H4b: Supported |
Category | Coefficient | CI | Existence of a Mediating Effect | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Estimate | S.E. | Lower | Upper | ||
Variable: TC | |||||
Between ST and PS | 0.113 | 0.027 | 0.158 | 0.214 | √ |
Between WT and PS | 0.107 | 0.022 | 0.101 | 0.270 | √ |
Variable: RC | |||||
Between ST and PS | −0.137 | 0.019 | 0.147 | 0.236 | √ |
Between WT and PS | −0.210 | 0.038 | 0.182 | 0.322 | √ |
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
Zeng, H.; Cao, J.; Fu, Q. Unpacking the “Black Box”: Understanding the Effect of Strength of Ties on Inter-Team Conflict and Project Success in Megaprojects. Buildings 2022, 12, 1906. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12111906
Zeng H, Cao J, Fu Q. Unpacking the “Black Box”: Understanding the Effect of Strength of Ties on Inter-Team Conflict and Project Success in Megaprojects. Buildings. 2022; 12(11):1906. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12111906
Chicago/Turabian StyleZeng, Hui, Jiming Cao, and Qun Fu. 2022. "Unpacking the “Black Box”: Understanding the Effect of Strength of Ties on Inter-Team Conflict and Project Success in Megaprojects" Buildings 12, no. 11: 1906. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12111906