Ju, C and Ning, Y (2022) Integrating interorganizational justice to facilitate tacit knowledge sharing in architectural and engineering design projects: A configurational approach. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 29(9), pp. 3480-3498. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: Sharing tacit knowledge across firm boundaries is challenging in architectural and engineering design projects as tacit knowledge is embedded in the designer’s mind. It thus requires autonomous motivation. This study aims to examine how clients integrate distributive justice (DJ), procedural justice (PJ) and interactional justice (IJ) to motivate tacit knowledge sharing in interorganizational architectural and engineering (A/E) design projects. Design/methodology/approach: A theoretical model was built, describing how the combination of distributive, procedural and interactional justice influences tacit knowledge sharing. This model was then verified using latent profile analysis (LPA) of 360 A/E design projects. Findings: A total offour subgroups with quantitatively different combinations of distributive, procedural and interactional justice were identified. Within each subgroup, the levels of the three forms of justice were quite aligned. The results indicate that clients often implement interorganizational justice in a collective manner. Among the four subgroups, projects with the highest level of justice combination have a significantly higher level of tacit knowledge sharing than the other three. This indicates that sharing of tacit knowledge is driven by the overall level of interorganizational justice. Originality/value: The configurational approach complements previous research by presenting how combinations of interorganizational justice influence tacit knowledge sharing in A/E design projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architectural and engineering design projects; configurational analysis; interorganizational justice; tacit knowledge sharing |
| Index terms: | interorganizational, designer, subgroup, engineering design, justice, motivation, methodology, boundaries, tacit knowledge |
| Subjects: | business, profession, property law, legal systems, psychology, professional development, design process, research methods, research management |
| Topics: | Human Resources, Legal Issues, Digital Applications, Research Practice, Information Management, Business Strategy, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here