| Literature DB >> 35747681 |
Saira Naseer1, Kashif Abbass2, Muhammad Asif3, Hammad Bin Azam Hashmi2, Sidra Naseer4, Monica Violeta Achim5.
Abstract
Several factors affect health project success. This research aims to examine the impact of critical success factors on health project success and show how the essential factors of success interact with knowledge creation to impact health project success. The self-administered questionnaire was distributed to collect data from 246 managers, supervisors and zonal supervisors of DHQ hospital Attock and PIMS hospital Islamabad. The analysis was done using Smart PLS to understand the effect of exogenous variables over endogenous variables and the impact of mediating variables between two constructs. The results show that all critical success factors (MGTRF, DRF, CRF, PMRF, CLRF) are significantly affecting project success, in addition, tacit knowledge creation mediate the association between critical success factors and project success. In contrast, explicit knowledge creation does not mediate the relationship between critical success factors and project success. This study intends to expand the theoretical understanding of process improvement by providing practical insights into the impact of strategies used by project managers to develop new knowledge by capturing explicit and implicit information. This study also reinforces past findings and increases awareness about using knowledge creation to gain a competitive advantage in the health sector.Entities:
Keywords: critical success factors; health project success; knowledge creation; project; success
Year: 2022 PMID: 35747681 PMCID: PMC9211757 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.892488
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Figure 1Conceptual framework. Source: Author's constructed.
Distribution and collection of questionnaire.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| DHQ Attock | 166 | 133 |
| PIMS Islamabad | 134 | 113 |
| 300 | response rate = 82% |
Pilot testing results.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Client related factors | 6 | 0.810 |
| Contractor related factors | 5 | 0.824 |
| Design related factors | 5 | 0.665 |
| Knowledge creation | 12 | 0.857 |
| MGT related factors | 7 | 0.900 |
| Project manager related factors | 5 | 0.818 |
| Project success | 6 | 0.838 |
In this section of the study, construct of the questionnaire is briefly discussed. Following are the table, which provides detailed information about the constructs of the study (see .
Respondent profile.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Polio | 131 | 53.3 | |
| Dengue | 27 | 11 | |
| MCH week | 9 | 3.7 | |
| Measles | 5 | 2.0 | |
| EPI | 5 | 2.0 | |
| T.B Dot Program | 50 | 20.3 | |
| School Health Program | 4 | 1.6 | |
| MTOT-MCH | 15 | 6.1 | |
| Total | 246 | 100 | |
|
| |||
| Metric | 41 | 16.7 | |
| FA/Fsc | 86 | 35.0 | |
| BA/BSc | 44 | 17.9 | |
| MBBS/FCPS | 52 | 21.1 | |
| R. Nursing | 22 | 8.9 | |
| 6.00 | 1 | 0.4 | |
| Total | 246 | 100.0 | |
|
| |||
| Top | 25 | 10.2 | |
| Middle | 56 | 22.8 | |
| Operational | 165 | 67.1 | |
| Total | 246 | 100.0 | |
|
| |||
| 1–2 Yrs | 87 | 35.4 | |
| 2–5 Yrs | 35 | 14.2 | |
| >5 Yrs | 122 | 49.6 | |
| Total | 246 | 100.0 | |
|
| |||
| Technical/engineering | 2 | 0.8 | |
| IT/MIS | 0 | 0 | |
| Finance | 0 | 0 | |
| HRM | 138 | 56.1 | |
| Other (please specify) | 106 | 43.1 | |
| Total | 246 | 100.0 | |
|
| |||
| <100 | 224 | 91.1 | |
| 101–300 | 18 | 7.3 | |
| 301–1,000 | 1 | 0.4 | |
| 1,001–5,000 | 3 | 1.2 | |
| >5,000 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | 246 | 100.0 | |
Internal consistency of the final instrument.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Client related factors | 0.810 | 0.839 |
| Contractor related factors | 0.824 | 0.876 |
| Design related factors | 0.665 | 0.778 |
| Knowledge creation | 0.857 | 0.882 |
| MGT related factors | 0.900 | 0.915 |
| Project manager related factors | 0.818 | 0.875 |
| Project success | 0.838 | 0.879 |
Figure 2Measurement model indicating only indicators reliability. Source: Author's constructed.
Factors loading.
|
|
|
|---|---|
|
| |
| MGRF1 | 0.445 |
| MGRF2 | 0.849 |
| MGRF3 | 0.696 |
| MGRF4 | 0.706 |
| MGRF5 | 0.776 |
| MGRF6 | 0.930 |
| MGRF7 | 0.969 |
|
| |
| DRF1 | 0.708 |
| DRF2 | 0.675 |
| DRF3 | 0.316 |
| DRF4 | 0.617 |
| DRF5 | 0.844 |
|
| |
| CRF1 | 0.773 |
| CRF2 | 0.858 |
| CRF3 | 0.730 |
| CRF4 | 0.556 |
| CRF5 | 0.880 |
|
| |
| PMRF1 | 0.813 |
| PMRF2 | 0.920 |
| PMRF3 | 0.732 |
| PMRF5 | 0.761 |
| PMRF6 | 0.566 |
|
| |
| CLRF1 | 0.790 |
| CLRF2 | 0.690 |
| CLRF3 | 0.761 |
| CLRF5 | 0.478 |
| CLRF6 | 0.659 |
| CLRF7 | 0.693 |
|
| |
| EKC1 | 0.507 |
| EKC2 | 0.533 |
| EKC4 | 0.661 |
| EKC5 | 0.604 |
| EKC6 | 0.721 |
| EKC7 | 0.559 |
| EKC8 | 0.640 |
| EKC9 | 0.439 |
|
| |
| TCK1 | 0.679 |
| TCK2 | 0.572 |
| TKC4 | 0.781 |
| TKC5 | 0.708 |
|
| |
| CSRF1 | 0.546 |
| CSRF2 | 0.798 |
| CSRF3 | 0.694 |
| CSRF4 | 0.817 |
| CSRF5 | 0.827 |
| CSRF6 | 0.733 |
Convergent validity.
|
|
|
|---|---|
| PS | 0.55 |
| CLRF | 0.57 |
| CRF | 0.59 |
| DRF | 0.53 |
| MGTRF | 0.61 |
| PMRF | 0.58 |
| KC | 0.66 |
Fornell and Larcker criterion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CLRF | 0.754 | ||||||
| CRF | 0.379 | 0.768 | |||||
| DRF | 0.151 | 0.297 | 0.728 | ||||
| KC | 0.491 | 0.584 | 0.198 | 0.812 | |||
| MGTRF | 0.049 | 0.005 | 0.034 | 0.134 | 0.781 | ||
| PMRF | 0.639 | 0.528 | 0.103 | 0.484 | 0.003 | 0.761 | |
| PS | 0.379 | 0.586 | 0.294 | 0.502 | 0.135 | 0.466 | 0.742 |
Coefficient of determination.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Project success | 0.431 | Moderate |
| Knowledge creation | 0.433 | Moderate |
Figure 3Normality probability plots of variables. Source: Author's constructed.
Multicollinearity.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| MGTRF | 0.958 | 1.044 |
| DRF | 0.884 | 1.131 |
| CRF | 0.606 | 1.649 |
| PMRF | 0.516 | 1.939 |
| CLRF | 0.609 | 1.643 |
| EKC | 0.690 | 1.450 |
| TKCRF | 0.587 | 1.702 |
Direct analysis (result after boostrapping).
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MGTRF->PS | H1a | 0.251 | 0.119 | 2.109 | 0.027 | Supported |
| DRF->PS | H1b | 0.347 | 0.095 | 3.652 | 0.000 | Supported |
| CRF->PS | H1c | 0.322 | 0.139 | 2.312 | 0.024 | Supported |
| PMRF->PS | H1d | 0.305 | 0.125 | 2.440 | 0.018 | Supported |
| CLRF->PS | H1e | 0.339 | 0.110 | 3.082 | 0.006 | Supported |
Mediating analysis (tacit and explicit knowledge creation) (result after boostrapping).
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MGTRF->TKC->PS | H2a | 0.232 | 0.077 | 3.013 | 0.009 | Supported |
| DRF-> TKC->PS | H2b | 0.228 | 0.093 | 2.452 | 0.001 | Supported |
| CRF-> TKC->PS | H2c | 0.272 | 0.096 | 2.833 | 0.005 | Supported |
| PMRF-> TKC->PS | H2d | 0.237 | 0.096 | 2.469 | 0.017 | Supported |
| CLRF->TKC->PS | H2e | 0.455 | 0.123 | 3.691 | 0.000 | Supported |
| MGTRF->EKC->PS | H3a | 0.044 | 0.142 | 0.311 | 0.309 | Not supported |
| DRF-> EKC->PS | H3b | 0.124 | 0.133 | 0.935 | 0.248 | Not supported |
| CRF-> EKC->PS | H3c | 0.045 | 0.116 | 0.387 | 0.316 | Not supported |
| PMRF->EKC->PS | H3d | 0.061 | 0.115 | 0.530 | 0.279 | Not supported |
| CLRF->EKC->PS | H3e | 0.081 | 0.104 | 0.778 | 0.279 | Not supported |
Construct and items.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Management-related factors | 7 | Saqib et al., |
| 2 | Design related factors | 5 | Saqib et al., |
| 3 | Contractor related factors | 5 | Saqib et al., |
| 4 | Project Manager related factors | 6 | Saqib et al., |
| 5 | Client related factors | 7 | Saqib et al., |
| 6 | Knowledge creation | 14 | Songer and Molenaar, |
| 7 | Project success | 6 | Shenhar et al., |
Sources of reflective constructs.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| MGTRF | Communication system among all members. | Saqib et al., |
| The control mechanism of project activity. | ||
| The feedback system for all Stakeholders. | ||
| Planning ability of project team. | ||
| Decision-making ability of Project team. | ||
| Prior project management experience of the project team. | ||
| The ability of the project team of risk identification and allocation. | ||
| DRF | Design team experience [design experience of consultant (Architect/Engineers)]. | Saqib et al., |
| Project design complexity. | ||
| Mistakes/delays in producing design documents. | ||
| Design team's contribution to project. | ||
| Adequacy of plans and specifications. | ||
| CRF | Contractor experience of related projects. | Saqib et al., |
| The ability of a contractor to supervise project activity. | ||
| The ability of the project manager to supervise the contractor. | ||
| The ability of the project team to manage contractor case flow. | ||
| Speed of information between project organization and contractor. | ||
| PMRF | Project manager competence/skill. | Saqib et al., |
| Project manager experience related to project. | Verburg et al., | |
| Leadership skills of project manager. | ||
| Technical capability of project manager. | ||
| Organizing and coordinating skills of project manager with contractor and subcontractor. | ||
| Reporting skill of project manager with contractor and subcontractor. | ||
| CLRF | Influence of client's representative. | Saqib et al., |
| Client experience. | ||
| Owner's clear and precise definition of project scope & objectives. | ||
| Owner's risk attitude (willingness to take risks). | ||
| Client's ability to brief the project. | ||
| Client's ability to make appropriate decisions. | ||
| Client's ability to define roles clearly. | ||
| K.C. | The project related internal documents or data files were easily accessible/available. | Songer and Molenaar, |
| The project related manuals or regulations were easily accessible/available. | ||
| The projected related professionals and experts were easily accessible for a meeting. | ||
| The professional databases or websites were easily accessible to acquire projected related knowledge. | ||
| Our colleagues and supervisors were easily accessible/available for sharing their valuable projected related knowledge. | ||
| We had an opportunity to hold an informal meeting with team members to share our projected related ideas/knowledge. | ||
| Team members were encouraged to keep the records of working knowledge in a written form. | ||
| Team members were encouraged to keep the records of working knowledge as a standardized procedure. | ||
| Team members were encouraged to keep the records of working knowledge in the information system. | ||
| Team members were encouraged to update the work-related profiles for further use. | ||
| Team members were encouraged to store the work-related rules or regulations in a written format or information system. | ||
| Team members were encouraged to transfer their knowledge or experience to others. | ||
| Team members were encouraged to discuss and share their opinions and documents with colleagues. | ||
| Team members were encouraged to quickly respond and provide our team with the necessary information, documents, or techniques whenever they encountered problems. | ||
| CSRF | The project was successful in meeting its functional performance of customers' expectations. | Shenhar et al., |
| The project was successful in meeting technical specifications as required by the customer. | ||
| The project was successful in fulfilling customers' needs. | ||
| The project was successful in solving customers' problems. | ||
| The customer is using the delivered product effectively/successfully. | ||
| Customers are satisfied with project deliverables. | ||