Configurational Path to Collaborative Innovation in Large and Complex Construction Projects
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Collaborative Innovation
2.2. Drivers of Collaborative Innovation
3. Research Method
3.1. Research Design
3.2. Measures
3.3. Questionnaire Design and Data Collection
3.4. Data Analysis Method
4. Results
4.1. Data Reliability and Validity
4.2. Calibration
4.3. Necessary Conditions Analysis
4.4. Sufficient Conditions Analysis
5. Discussion and Conclusions
5.1. Discussion
5.2. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | |
By engaging in group thinking, communication, informal encounters, etc., to accumulate and learn experience | |||||||
By engaging in brainstorming sessions, formal reviews, de-brief meetings, lessons learned, and/or post-mortem meetings to articulate knowledge | |||||||
By engaging in project plan/audit, milestones, case writing, etc., to codify knowledge and information | |||||||
By visiting other projects, inter-communication, and networking to transfer, absorb, and use knowledge | |||||||
The megaproject always requires trying out new approaches to difficult problems | |||||||
Introducing new ideas into the organisations is part of the project goals | |||||||
The tasks in megaprojects include exploring organisational, financial, contract, and technological innovation collaboratively | |||||||
We need to be innovative to fulfil our tasks and clients’ requirements | |||||||
To achieve the project on schedule or ahead of time | |||||||
To reduce construction costs | |||||||
To improve construction quality | |||||||
To ensure safety | |||||||
To improve user satisfaction during project operation | |||||||
To gain monetary rewards (e.g., financial compensations, monetary benefits) | |||||||
To obtain industry/national honour | |||||||
To gain non-monetary rewards from the project (e.g., feedback and recognition from clients) | |||||||
To build a good image and reputation | |||||||
To achieve increased value creation (e.g., the first-mover advantage, increased market share, new market opportunities) | |||||||
To express the firm’s ability and creativity | |||||||
To improve other participants and clients’ satisfaction | |||||||
In response to peer competition | |||||||
In response to construction technology changes | |||||||
In response to regulation changes (taxes, international, etc.) | |||||||
In response to information and communication technology changes | |||||||
In response to natural environmental changes | |||||||
In response to the evolution of the construction industry | |||||||
By engaging in group thinking, communication, informal encounters, etc., to accumulate and learn experience | |||||||
By engaging in brainstorming sessions, formal reviews, de-brief meetings, lessons learned, and/or post-mortem meetings to articulate knowledge | |||||||
By engaging in project plan/audit, milestones, case writing, etc., to codify knowledge and information | |||||||
By visiting other projects, inter-communication, and networking to transfer, absorb, and use knowledge | |||||||
The megaproject always requires trying out new approaches to difficult problems |
References
- Flyvbjerg, B. What you Should Know about Megaprojects and Why: An Overview. Proj. Manag. J. 2014, 45, 6–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Locatelli, G.; Greco, M.; Invernizzi, D.C.; Grimaldi, M.; Malizi, S. What about the people? Micro-foundations of open innovation in megaprojects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2021, 39, 115–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Coninck, B.; Gascó-Hernández, M.; Viaene, S.; Leysen, J. Determinants of open innovation adoption in public organizations: A systematic review. Public Manag. Rev. 2023, 25, 990–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; He, Q.; Zhang, X.; Cao, T.; Liu, Y. What motivates stakeholders to engage in collaborative innovation in the infrastructure megaprojects. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2021, 27, 579–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, M.; Wang, L. Studies on internal and external factors of collaborative innovation and their operational mechanism among small and medium sized enterprises (SMES). Chem. Eng. Trans. 2015, 46, 439–444. [Google Scholar]
- De Perea, J.G.-Á.; Ramírez-García, C.; Del Cubo-Molina, A. Internationalization business models and patterns of SMEs and MNEs: A qualitative multi-case study in the agrifood sector. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, H. What kinds of countries have better innovation performance? A country-level fsQCA and NCA study. J. Innov. Knowl. 2022, 7, 100215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chuah, S.H.-W.; Aw, E.C.-X.; Yee, D. Unveiling the complexity of consumers’ intention to use service robots: An fsQCA approach. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2021, 23, 106870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Callens, C.; Verhoest, K.; Boon, J. Combined effects of procurement and collaboration on innovation in public-private-partnerships: A qualitative comparative analysis of 24 infrastructure projects. Public Manag. Rev. 2022, 24, 860–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeng, X.; Li, S.; Yin, S.; Xing, Z. How Does the Government Promote the Collaborative Innovation of Green Building Projects? An Evolutionary Game Perspective. Buildings 2022, 12, 1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, T.; Mao, Y.; Lu, S. Fostering Participants’ Collaborative Innovation Performance in Megaprojects: The Effects of Perceived Partners’ Non-Mediated Power. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2023, 149, 04022141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, K.; Liu, Y.; Kou, Y.; Yang, X.; Hu, G. Formation mechanism for collaborative behaviour among stakeholders in megaprojects based on the theory of planned behaviour. Build. Res. Inf. 2023, 51, 667–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sergeeva, N.; Zanello, C. Championing and promoting innovation in UK megaprojects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2018, 36, 1068–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mu, W.; Bian, Y.; Zhao, J.L. The role of online leadership in open collaborative innovation: Evidence from blockchain open source projects. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2019, 119, 1969–1987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bengtsson, M.; Kock, S. “Coopetition” in Business Networks—To Cooperate and Compete Simultaneously. Ind. Market. Manag. 2000, 29, 411–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aalbers, R.; Whelan, E. Implementing digitally enabled collaborative innovation: A case study of online and offline interaction in the German automotive industry. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2021, 30, 368–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, T.; Yang, J.; Zhang, F.; Guo, W. Interfirm coopetition, interfirm knowledge creation, and collaborative innovation performance: The moderating roles of environmental competitiveness and dysfunctional competition. Ind. Market. Manag. 2021, 99, 123–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Ding, R.; Wang, L.; Song, R.; Song, X. Cooperation in an uncertain environment: The impact of stakeholders’ concerted action on collaborative innovation projects risk management. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2023, 196, 122804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walsh, J.P.; Lee, Y.-N.; Nagaoka, S. Openness and innovation in the US: Collaboration form, idea generation and implementation. Res. Policy 2016, 45, 1660–1671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moellers, T.; Visini, C.; Haldimann, M. Complementing open innovation in multi-business firms: Practices for promoting knowledge flows across internal units. R D Manag. 2020, 50, 96–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rajalo, S.; Vadi, M. Collaboration potential between low-capacity SMEs and academic researchers determined by symmetry of motivation. Technovation 2021, 107, 102304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davies, A.; MacAulay, S.; DeBarro, T.; Thurston, M. Making Innovation Happen in a Megaproject: London’s Crossrail Suburban Railway System. Proj. Manag. J. 2014, 45, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lehtinen, J.; Peltokorpi, A.; Artto, K. Megaprojects as organizational platforms and technology platforms for value creation. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2019, 37, 43–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ge, S.; Liu, X. The role of knowledge creation, absorption and acquisition in determining national competitive advantage. Technovation 2022, 112, 102396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Yan, Y.; Guan, J. The impact of competition and collaboration networks on innovation performance. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2023, 91, 239–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gnyawali, D.R.; Ryan Charleton, T. Nuances in the Interplay of Competition and Cooperation: Towards a Theory of Coopetition. J. Manag. 2018, 44, 2511–2534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, J.F.; Zhao, X.; Stanley Snell, R. Collaborative-based HRM practices and open innovation: A conceptual review. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2019, 30, 31–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.; Zhang, L.; Li, A. Investigating the Effects of Reward Interdependence and Nonfinancial Incentives on NPD Collaboration in Diverse Project Teams. Proj. Manag. J. 2019, 50, 641–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, J.; Wu, G.; Xi, X.; Na, Q.; Liu, W. How collaborative innovation system in a knowledge-intensive competitive alliance evolves? An empirical study on China, Korea and Germany. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 137, 128–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boateng, P.; Chen, Z.; Ogunlan, S.O. An Analytical Network Process model for risks prioritisation in megaprojects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 1795–1811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prencipe, A.; Tell, F. Inter-project learning: Processes and outcomes of knowledge codification in project-based firms. Res. Policy 2001, 30, 1373–1394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alashwal, A.M.; Abdul-Rahman, H. Using PLS-PM to model the process of inter-project learning in construction projects. Automat. Constr. 2014, 44, 176–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Zheng, J.; Darko, A. How Does Transformational Leadership Promote Innovation in Construction? The Mediating Role of Innovation Climate and the Multilevel Moderation Role of Project Requirements. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haider, S.A.; Zubair, M.; Tehseen, S.; Iqbal, S.; Sohail, M. How does ambidextrous leadership promote innovation in project-based construction companies? Through mediating role of knowledge-sharing and moderating role of innovativeness. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2023, 26, 99–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suprapto, M.; Bakker, H.L.M.; Mooi, H.G. Relational factors in owner-contractor collaboration: The mediating role of teamworking. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 1347–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Füller, J. Refining virtual co-creation from a consumer perspective. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2010, 52, 98–122. [Google Scholar]
- Armstrong, M.; Stephens, T. A Handbook of Employee Reward Management and Practice; Kogan Page Publishers: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Hermundsdottir, F.; Aspelund, A. Sustainability innovations and firm competitiveness: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 280, 124715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, H.Y.; Misra, K.; Reddy, S.; Jaber, K. Family firms’ innovation drivers and performance: A dynamic capabilities approach. J. Fam. Bus. Manag. 2019, 9, 4–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.; Hu, Q. Knowledge sharing in supply chain networks: Effects of collaborative innovation activities and capability on innovation performance. Technovation 2020, 94–95, 102010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pappas, I.O.; Woodside, A.G. Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA): Guidelines for research practice in Information Systems and marketing. Int. J. Inform. Manag. 2021, 58, 102310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Obrenovic, B.; Jianguo, D.; Tsoy, D.; Obrenovic, S.; Khan, M.A.S.; Anwar, F. The Enjoyment of Knowledge Sharing: Impact of Altruism on Tacit Knowledge-Sharing Behavior. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mikalef, P.; Boura, M.; Lekakos, G.; Krogstie, J. Big data analytics and firm performance: Findings from a mixed-method approach. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 98, 261–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer, A.D.; Tsui, A.S.; Hinings, C.R. Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Acad. Manag. J. 1993, 36, 1175–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mikalef, P.; Pateli, A. Information technology-enabled dynamic capabilities and their indirect effect on competitive performance: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 70, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, X.; Wang, H. How can open innovation ecosystem modes push product innovation forward? An fsQCA analysis. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 108, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malik, M.; Ghaderi, H.; Andargoli, A. A resource orchestration view of supply chain traceability and transparency bundles for competitive advantage. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2021, 30, 3866–3881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Market. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; Organ, D.W. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. J. Manag. 1986, 12, 531–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahman, M.S.; Bag, S.; Gupta, S.; Sivarajah, U. Technology readiness of B2B firms and AI-based customer relationship management capability for enhancing social sustainability performance. J. Bus. Res. 2023, 156, 113525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khedhaouria, A.; Cucchi, A. Technostress creators, personality traits, and job burnout: A fuzzy-set configurational analysis. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 101, 349–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiss, P.C. A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 1180–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rihoux, B.; Ragin, C.C. Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques; Sage: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Moh’d, S.S.; Černe, M.; Zhang, P. An Exploratory Configurational Analysis of Knowledge Hiding Antecedents in Project Teams. Proj. Manag. J. 2021, 52, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Callens, C.; Verhoest, K. Unlocking the process of collaborative innovation—Combining mechanisms of divergence and convergence. Public Manag. Rev 2023. ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carmona-Lavado, A.; Cuevas-Rodríguez, G.; Cabello-Medina, C.; Fedriani, E.M. Does open innovation always work? The role of complementary assets. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 162, 120316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbosa, A.P.F.P.L.; Salerno, M.S.; Nascimento, P.T.D.S.; Albala, A.; Maranzato, F.P.; Tamoschus, D. Configurations of project management practices to enhance the performance of open innovation R&D projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2021, 39, 128–138. [Google Scholar]
- Dodgson, M.; Gann, D.; MacAulay, S.; Davies, A. Innovation strategy in new transportation systems: The case of Crossrail. Transp. Res. Part. A Policy Pract. 2015, 77, 261–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, H.; Jin, Z.; Su, Q.; Yue, G. The roles of captains in megaproject innovation ecosystems: The case of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2020, 28, 662–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Qiu, Y. How does the improved DB mode degrade the complex integrity of infrastructure mega-projects? Evidence from the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge project in China. Front. Eng. Manag. 2018, 5, 40–51. [Google Scholar]
- Winch, G.M. Three domains of project organising. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 721–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moritz, A.; Naulin, T.; Lutz, E. Accelerators as drivers of coopetition among early-stage startups. Technovation 2021, 111, 102378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leverick, F.; Littler, D. Risks and Rewards of Collaboration; Manchester School of Management, UMIST: Manchester, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Locatelli, G.; Mikic, M.; Kovacevic, M.; Brookes, N.; Ivanisevic, N. The Successful Delivery of Megaprojects: A Novel Research Method. Proj. Manag. J. 2017, 48, 78–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Drivers | Scales |
---|---|
Knowledge and learning | By engaging in group thinking, communication, informal encounters, etc., to accumulate and learn experience |
By engaging in brainstorming sessions, formal reviews, de-brief meetings, lessons learned, and/or post-mortem meetings to articulate knowledge | |
By engaging in project plan/audit, milestones, case writing, etc., to codify knowledge and information | |
By visiting other projects, inter-communication, and networking to transfer, absorb, and use the knowledge | |
Project requirements | The megaproject always requires trying out new approaches to difficult problems |
Introducing new ideas into the organisations is part of the project goals | |
The tasks in megaprojects include exploring organisational and technological innovation collaboratively | |
We need to be innovative to fulfil our tasks and clients’ requirements | |
Project performance improvement | To achieve the project on schedule or ahead of time |
To reduce construction costs | |
To improve construction quality | |
To ensure safety | |
To improve operability | |
Rewards | To gain monetary rewards (e.g., financial compensations, monetary benefits) |
To obtain industry/national honour | |
To gain non-monetary rewards from the project (e.g., feedback and recognition from clients) | |
Competition | To build a good image and reputation |
To achieve increased value creation (e.g., the first-mover advantage, increased market share, new market opportunities) | |
To express the firm’s ability and creativity | |
To improve other participants and clients’ satisfaction | |
In response to peer competition | |
External changes | In response to construction technology changes |
In response to regulation changes (taxes, international, etc.) | |
In response to information and communication technology changes | |
In response to natural environmental changes | |
In response to the evolution of the construction industry |
Number | Percentage | ||
---|---|---|---|
Educational background | Below bachelor | 9 | 18.75% |
Bachelor | 20 | 41.67% | |
Master | 13 | 27.08% | |
PhD | 6 | 12.50% | |
Working experience in megaprojects (years) | <5 | 5 | 10.42% |
5–10 | 14 | 29.17% | |
10–20 | 22 | 45.83% | |
>20 | 7 | 14.58% | |
Positions | Project manager | 9 | 18.75% |
Site manager | 18 | 37.50% | |
Engineer | 7 | 14.58% | |
Consultant manager | 10 | 20.84% | |
Cost management Manager | 4 | 8.33% | |
Types of stakeholders | Clients | 7 | 14.58% |
Consultants | 12 | 25.00% | |
Contractors | 16 | 33.33% | |
Designers | 13 | 27.09% |
Conditions | Mean | SD | Calibration Values | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Percentile 5 | Median | Percentile 95 | |||
Knowledge and learning | 5.81 | 0.78 | 4.11 | 6.00 | 7.00 |
Project requirements | 5.90 | 0.85 | 3.61 | 6.00 | 7.00 |
Project performance improvement | 6.00 | 0.56 | 4.89 | 6.00 | 7.00 |
Rewards | 5.32 | 0.52 | 3.45 | 5.33 | 7.00 |
Competition | 5.57 | 0.68 | 3.23 | 5.75 | 7.00 |
External changes | 5.41 | 0.61 | 3.24 | 5.50 | 6.67 |
Collaborative innovation | 5.67 | 0.70 | 3.65 | 5.80 | 6.82 |
Collaborative Innovation | ~Collaborative Innovation | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consistency | Coverage | Consistency | Coverage | |
Knowledge and learning | 0.739 | 0.786 | 0.650 | 0.593 |
~Knowledge and learning | 0.618 | 0.674 | 0.766 | 0.715 |
Project requirements | 0.766 | 0.728 | 0.717 | 0.583 |
~Project requirements | 0.562 | 0.698 | 0.666 | 0.709 |
Project performance improvement | 0.719 | 0.760 | 0.681 | 0.616 |
~Project performance improvement | 0.636 | 0.699 | 0.735 | 0.692 |
Rewards | 0.706 | 0.733 | 0.662 | 0.588 |
~Rewards | 0.603 | 0.676 | 0.699 | 0.671 |
Competition | 0.744 | 0.777 | 0.677 | 0.606 |
~Competition | 0.622 | 0.692 | 0.750 | 0.715 |
External changes | 0.788 | 0.799 | 0.704 | 0.611 |
~External changes | 0.616 | 0.708 | 0.769 | 0.756 |
Configuration 1 | Configuration 2 | Configuration 3 | Configuration 4 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge and learning | ⬤ | ● | ⬤ | ⊗ |
Project requirements | ⬤ | ⬤ | ⊗ | ⬤ |
Project performance improvement | ⬤ | ⬤ | ⊗ | ⬤ |
Rewards | ⊗ | ● | ● | |
Competition | ⬤ | ⊗ | ⬤ | ⊗ |
External changes | ● | ⊗ | ● | |
Consistency | 0.880 | 0.971 | 0.991 | 0.965 |
Raw coverage | 0.473 | 0.298 | 0.291 | 0.273 |
Unique coverage | 0.145 | 0.021 | 0.057 | 0.042 |
Overall solution consistency | 0.885 | |||
Overall solution coverage | 0.601 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 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
Chen, X.; Wang, T.; Liu, Y.; Dou, Z. Configurational Path to Collaborative Innovation in Large and Complex Construction Projects. Buildings 2024, 14, 117. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14010117
Chen X, Wang T, Liu Y, Dou Z. Configurational Path to Collaborative Innovation in Large and Complex Construction Projects. Buildings. 2024; 14(1):117. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14010117
Chicago/Turabian StyleChen, Xiaoyan, Ting Wang, Yan Liu, and Zixin Dou. 2024. "Configurational Path to Collaborative Innovation in Large and Complex Construction Projects" Buildings 14, no. 1: 117. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14010117
APA StyleChen, X., Wang, T., Liu, Y., & Dou, Z. (2024). Configurational Path to Collaborative Innovation in Large and Complex Construction Projects. Buildings, 14(1), 117. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14010117