Re-examining the link between relational governance and project management performance: an integrated framework

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research model Based on the integrated framework.

Table 1. Characteristics of respondents and projects.

Characteristic of respondents	Frequency	Characteristic of projects	Frequency
Education		Total investments
Doctoral degree	12(4.26%)	＞500 million RMB ($72.1 million)	116(41.13%)
Master’s degree	46(16.31%)	100–500 million RMB ($14.4–72.1 million)	112(39.72%)
Bachelor’s degree	172(60.99%)	50–100 million RMB ($7.2–14.4 million)	28(9.93%)
Others	52(18.44%)	<50 million RMB ($7.2 million)	26(9.22%)
Work experience		Project type
＞10 years	105(37.23%)	Office and residential construction	126(44.68%)
6–10 years	63(22.34%)	Industrial construction	11(3.90%)
3–5 years	47(16.67%)	Public construction	34(12.06%)
< 3years	67(23.76%)	Infrastructural construction	44(15.60%)
Job position		Commercial construction	54(19.15%)
Manager at the headquarters	67(23.76%)	Others	13(4.61%)
Project manager	55(19.50%)	Project delivery system
GMTP Others	144(51.06%)	DBB and DB	141(50%)
	16(5.67%)	EPC and PPP	141(50%)

GMTP = General management/technical personnel.

Table 2. Reliability and validity analysis.

Variable	Items	LOA	CR	α	AVE	Variable	Items	LOA	CR	α	AVE
AD	AD1	0.868	0.868	0.868	0.868	PMP	PMP5	0.767
	AD2	0.880				CO	CO1	0.773	0.860	0.797	0.554
	AD3	0.694					CO2	0.816
TR	TR1	0.816	0.884	0.836	0.605		CO3	0.693
	TR2	0.823					CO4	0.786
	TR3	0.761					CO5	0.694
	TR4	0.733				CN	CN1	0.687	0.885	0.845	0.563
	TR5	0.751					CN2	0.790
PMP	PMP1	0.637	0.859	0.795	0.551		CN3	0.734
	PMP2	0.675					CN4	0.800
	PMP3	0.826					CN5	0.745
	PMP4	0.790					CN6	0.742

LOA = factor loadings; CR = composite reliability; α = Cronbach’s alpha; AD = asymmetric dependence; TR = trust; PMP = project management performance; CO = communication CN = coordination.

Table 3. Cross-loadings for measurement items.

	Asymmetric dependence	Coordination	Communication	Project management Performance	Trust
AD1	0.868	−0.145	−0.174	−0.141	−0.315
AD2	0.880	−0.149	−0.128	−0.174	−0.302
AD3	0.694	−0.103	−0.065	−0.064	−0.180
CN1	−0.033	0.687	0.403	0.348	0.341
CN2	−0.189	0.790	0.542	0.477	0.448
CN3	−0.141	0.734	0.424	0.348	0.394
CN4	−0.129	0.800	0.500	0.481	0.487
CN5	−0.131	0.745	0.481	0.397	0.422
CN6	−0.101	0.742	0.524	0.438	0.379
CO1	−0.119	0.488	0.773	0.436	0.422
CO2	−0.220	0.519	0.816	0.422	0.481
CO3	−0.031	0.347	0.639	0.309	0.282
CO4	−0.129	0.501	0.786	0.429	0.394
CO5	−0.063	0.508	0.694	0.398	0.417
PMP1	−0.185	0.283	0.341	0.637	0.330
PMP2	−0.122	0.317	0.324	0.675	0.313
PMP3	−0.093	0.482	0.461	0.826	0.421
PMP4	−0.075	0.472	0.386	0.790	0.380
PMP5	−0.155	0.470	0.465	0.767	0.472
TR1	−0.353	0.440	0.421	0.397	0.823
TR2	−0.266	0.420	0.447	0.389	0.761
TR3	−0.158	0.384	0.379	0.410	0.733
TR4	−0.270	0.379	0.417	0.417	0.751
TR5	−0.249	0.517	0.448	0.426	0.816

Table 4. Correlation matrix.

	AD	Coordination	Communication	PMP	Trust
AD	1
Coordination	−0.165	1
Communication	−0.159	0.641	1
PMP	−0.164	0.558	0.540	1
Trust	−0.336	0.553	0.544	0.524	1

AD = asymmetric dependence; PMP = project management performance.

Table 5. Estimates for the research model.

Hypothesis	β	t-value	p-value	Support	Hypothesis	β	t-value	p-value	Support
H1:AD→PMP	0.000	0.009	0.993	No	H4:CO→PMP	0.230	3.373	0.001	Yes
H2:TR→PMP	0.247	3.388	0.001	Yes	H5:CN→PMP	0.274	3.696	0.000	Yes
H3:AD→TR	−0.336	5.425	0.000	Yes

β = Path coefficient.

Table 6. Results of mediating models estimated by bootstrapping method.

				95% CI				95% CI
Model		IE	S.E.	BL	BU	DE	S.E.	BL	BU	Mediationexistence
H6a	TR-CO-PMP	0.129**	0.041	0.054	0.213	0.369**	0.064	0.000	0.232	Partial
H6b	TR-CN-PMP	0.155**	0.047	0.066	0.251					Partial
Total		0.284***	0.054	0.181	0.392
H7a	AD-CO-PMP	0.005	0.013	−0.021	0.032					Refused
H7b	AD-CN-PMP	0.006	0.017	−0.026	0.039					Refused
H8	AD-TR-PMP	−0.083**	0.030	−0.147	−0.032					Full
H9a	AD-TR-CO-PMP	−0.044*	0.017	−0.079	−0.015	−0.040	0.038	−0.127	0.045	Full
H9b	AD-TR-CN-PMP	−0.052**	0.017	−0.090	−0.021					Full
Total		−0.168***	0.045	−0.259	−0.083

IE = indirect effect; DE = direct effect; S.E. = standard error; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval; BL = boot lower; BU = boot upper; Total = total indirect effects.

Table

Construct	Code	Items	Source
TR	TR1	We are certain that other party have the ability to perform their tasks.	Romahn and Hartman,1999; Lu et al. (2016)
	TR2	We believe that the other party could meet the requirements of the project in technology and management
	TR3	We believe the project engineers and other technical people are competent at what they are doing.
	TR4	We believe that the other party are able to fulfill contractual agreements.
	TR5	We believe that the other party can keep their word throughout the life of the project.
AD	OWN1	It is difficult for us to find another contractor to replace the contractor.	Kumar et al., (1995); Kim and Choi (2018)
	OWN2	Failure to cooperate with the contractor will bring great losses to us.
	OWN3	Th contractor’s resources and technology are very important to us.
	CON1	It is difficult for the contractor to find a more generous profit by us.
	CON2	The contractor will suffer great losses once they failure to cooperate with us.
	CON3	The contractor has difficulty in finding other owners to cooperate.
CO	CO1	We share sensitive information.	Paulraj et al. (2008)
	CO2	Our project partner is provided with information that might help them.
	CO3	Exchange of information takes place frequently, informally and/or in a timely manner.
	CO4	We keep each other informed about events or changes that may affect the other party.
	CO5	We have frequent face-to-face planning/communication.
CN	CN1	Our project team worked interactively with the other party on important aspects of the project.	Liberatore and Luo (2009)
	CN2	Giving instructions or directions is an important way we coordinate with our project partner.
	CN3	There were established rules and procedures for coordination between the partner organizations.
	CN4	Team members were engaged in coordinating with our project partner.
	CN5	I worked interactively with my counterpart from the partner organization on important aspects of the project.
	CN6	Our project team worked interactively with the other party on important aspects of the project.
PMP	PMP1	The project deliverable meets the client’s objectives.	Wu et al. (2017)
	PMP2	This project has qualified acceptance and successful delivery.
	PMP3	The project can solve most problems encountered during the project execution.
	PMP4	The project process is satisfactory.
	PMP5	This project creates positive impacts for end users.

OWN1~OWN3 are used to evaluate the dependence of owners on contractors; CON1~CON3 are used to evaluate the dependence of contractors on owners. AD is the absolute value of the difference between owner’s dependence on contractor (OWN) and contractor’s dependence on owner (CON), similarly with Kumar et al. (1995) and Kim and Choi (2018). Because this research collected empirical data just from owners, we invited owners to evaluate the dependence of their contractors on them, and then take the owners’ estimate on CON1~CON3 as the true estimate of CON1~CON3.

Romahn, E., and F. T. Hartman 1999. Trust: A New Tool for Project Managers. 30th Annual Project Manage. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA: Institute.

 Google Scholar

Lu, P., L. Qian, Z. Chu, and X. Xu. 2016. “Role of Opportunism and Trust in Construction Projects: Empirical Evidence from China.” Journal of Management in Engineering 32 (2): 05015007. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000401.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kumar, N., L. K. Scheer, and J. B. E. Steenkamp. 1995. “The Effects of Perceived Interdependence on Dealer Attitudes.” Journal of Marketing Research 32 (3): 348–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379503200309.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kim, Y., and T. Y. Choi. 2018. “Tie Strength and Value Creation in the Buyer-Supplier Context: A U-Shaped Relation Moderated by Dependence Asymmetry.” Journal of Management 44 (3): 1029–1064. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315599214.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Paulraj, A., A. A. Lado, and I. J. Chen. 2008. “Inter-Organizational Communication as a Relational Competency: Antecedents and Performance Outcomes in Collaborative Buyer–Supplier Relationships.” Journal of Operations Management 26 (1): 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2007.04.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Liberatore, M. J., and W. Luo. 2009. “Coordination in Consultant-Assisted is Projects: An Agency Theory Perspective.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 57 (2): 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2009.2013838.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wu, G., C. Liu, X. Zhao, and J. Zuo. 2017. “Investigating the Relationship Between Communication-Conflict Interaction and Project Success Among Construction Project Teams.” International Journal of Project Management 35 (8): 1466–1482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.08.006.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar