Xie, L L; Luo, Y; Hou, L and Yu, J (2025) Determinants for megaproject knowledge innovation management: A Bayesian network analysis. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 32(9), pp. 5885-5912. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose - Megaproject knowledge innovation (MKI) is perceived as a critical strategy for engineering value co-creation and industrial chain upgrading. Ascertaining the impact mechanism of MKI is a crucial initial step towards improving management practices. Within the framework of complex systems in megaprojects, factors exhibit intricate interdependencies. However, the current domain of knowledge has either overlooked or oversimplified this relationship and therefore cannot propose pragmatic and efficacious strategies for enhancing MKI. To close this gap, this study develops a Bayesian network (BN) model aiming to investigate the interdependencies among MKI-related factors and their impact on MKI. Design/methodology/approach - First, this study implements literature review, expert interview and field investigation to identify the influencing factor nodes for the network model development. Second, a Bayesian network was constructed by integrating the expert knowledge with Dempster-Shafer theory. Next, a MKI measurement model was established using 253 training samples. Finally, the factor significance and optimal MKI improvement strategies are identified from the sensitivity analysis and probabilistic reasoning within the BNs. Findings - The results indicate that (1) the BN model exhibits significant reliability and holds promotion and application value in formulating MKI management strategies; (2) knowledge sharing, shared vision and leadership are the key influencing factors of MKI; and (3) simultaneously improving institutional pressure, leadership and knowledge sharing is the most optimal strategy to enhance MKI. Originality/value - This study innovatively introduced the BN method into the domain of MKI management, providing an appropriate approach for modelling complex relationships among factors and investigate nonlinear influences. The developed model raises megaproject stakeholders’ awareness about factors influencing MKI and presents quantified strategies that increase the likelihood of maximising MKI levels. Its ease of generalisability positions it as a promising decision support tool, facilitating the implementation of sustainable MKI practices.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Bayesian network; factor independencies; knowledge innovation; megaprojects |
| Index terms: | model development, innovation management, megaproject, value co-creation, methodology, management practice, literature review, strategy, knowledge sharing, upgrading, interview, institutional pressure, reasoning, decision support, sensitivity analysis, modelling, determinant, implementation, investigation, complex system, bayesian network, influencing factor, management strategy, promotion |
| Subjects: | research methods, environmental hazards, cognitive psychology, innovation studies, strategic management, analytical methods, strategic project management, contractual arrangements, knowledge management, management, systems engineering, probabilistic model, decision analysis, sociology, value management, data collection methods, risk assessment, data analysis and analytics |
| Topics: | Information Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Human Resources, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Sustainability, Procurement, Risk Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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