Luo, Y.; Li, J.; Feng, W.; Li, H. and Zhou, Y. (2026) The impact of incentive mechanisms on innovation performance in engineering project networks: The mediating role of knowledge sharing. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, pp. 1-29. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to deeply investigate how incentive mechanisms affect innovation performance in engineering project networks, and to highlight the key mediating role that knowledge sharing plays in this influence process. Focusing on profit sharing and risk sharing as two specific incentive mechanisms, it analyzes the intrinsic pathways and mechanisms through which they enhance the overall innovation performance of project networks by promoting both explicit and tacit knowledge sharing. Design/methodology/approach – A theoretical model was tested using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) on survey data from 230 multi-stakeholder engineering projects in China. The validated questionnaire measures PS, RS, RC, EKS, TKS and IP. Bootstrapping analysis confirmed the reliability and validity of the data and examined the direct, mediating and moderating effects of the model. Findings – Profit-sharing mechanism significantly enhance innovation performance exclusively through facilitating explicit knowledge sharing, while demonstrating no direct effect on tacit knowledge transfer. In contrast, risk-sharing mechanism directly improves innovation performance while promoting both explicit and tacit knowledge sharing. Relational capital plays a critical moderating role by strengthening the impact of both incentive types on tacit knowledge sharing, yet exhibits no significant moderating effect on explicit knowledge sharing. Notably, explicit knowledge sharing contributes more substantially to innovation performance than tacit knowledge sharing in engineering project networks, challenging conventional views on the primacy of tacit knowledge in innovation contexts. Originality/value – Proposing the "Motivation-Relationship-Knowledge-Innovation" framework. It not only solves the theoretical gap of differentiated incentive paths and integration barriers, but also provides a practice paradigm for project network governance that takes into account both contract design and relationship cultivation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | engineering project network; innovation performance; knowledge sharing; profit sharing; relational capital; risk sharing |
| Index terms: | structural equation modelling, innovation performance, governance, integration, strengthening, motivation, partial least square, China, direct effect, methodology, paradigm, knowledge sharing, profit, explicit knowledge, validity, tacit knowledge, engineering project network, questionnaire, survey, project network |
| Subjects: | knowledge management, factor and component analysis, research methods, business, statistical analysis, structural engineering, psychology, performance measurement, economic analysis, organizational analysis, professional development, project planning, evaluation and assessment methods, Geography, data collection methods, education and knowledge transfer |
| Topics: | Project Management, Organizational Design, Research Practice, Quality Management, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Governance, Geographical Context, Human Resources, Business Strategy |
| 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