Fig. 1:
Fig. 2:
Path coefficients
| Variables | Path coefficients | t-value | ρ-value | Hypotheses | Remark |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BDAC to DM | 0.466 | 2.017* | 0.022* | H1 (+) | Accepted |
| DM to FS | 0.808 | 18.744 | 0.000* | H2 (+) | Accepted |
| DM to IS | 0.354 | 2.952* | 0.002* | H3 (+) | Accepted |
| FS to IS | 0.541 | 4.577* | 0.000* | H4 (+) | Accepted |
| FS to FP | -0.220 | 1.079 | 0.140 | H5 (–) | Rejected |
| IS to FP | 0.705 | 3.725* | 0.000* | H6 (+) | Accepted |
Previous research findings
| No | Research findings | Stages | Researchers |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The EPC construction contractor has the responsibility for the entire engineering, procurement and construction work, including the risks incurred due to unbalanced contracts and determination of the winner based on the lowest bid. | Planning | Allas et al. (2017) |
| 2 | Characteristics of the EPC construction industry: it is unique in that each project is different from one another for the same business, uncertainty and complexity; there is no standard fit to solve all the problems. | Planning | Koconegoro (2012) and Kent et al. (2017) |
| 3 | Type of project tender is the lowest bid, followed by negotiation, ineffective planning and schedule of project implementation and limited materials, equipment & machinery when it will be used. | Planning | Bagus (2018) |
| 4 | Project owners tend to transfer project risks to EPC construction contractors by utilising the characteristics of the EPC contract method (LSTK), where the contractor is responsible for the entire project implementation. | Planning | Wagner (2020) |
| 5 | The challenges faced by EPC construction companies in implementing digitalisation include corporate culture, organisational capabilities, leadership and expertise. | Planning | Liao et al. (2023) |
| 6 | Scarcity of materials, and unavailability of labour and equipment are important factors that cause delays in project completion. | Implementation | Elawi et al. (2016) |
| 7 | Delayed project conditions can affect construction costs, EPC project performance and lagging technology used. | Implementation | PMI (2017) |
| 8 | The implementation of digital technology in organisations, including EPC construction, will have positive and negative impacts on the DM process. | Implementation | Park et al. (2021) |
| 9 | There are three important factors of concern in the implementation of EPC construction projects: implementation time, project completion cost and project quality. | Implementation | Kabirifar and Mojtahedi (2019) |
| 10 | Performance measures of EPC projects include on-time completion, cost and quality. | Implementation | Sun et al. (2021) |
j_otmcj-2025-0013_app_tab_001
| No. | Indicators | Loading factor >0.5 | Cronbach’s alpha >0.6 | AVE >0.5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | BCM1 ≤ BDAC compatibility | 0.806 | 0.846 | 0.765 |
| 2 | BCM2 ≤ BDAC compatibility | 0.923 | ||
| 3 | BCM3 ≤ BDAC compatibility | 0.892 | ||
| 4 | BCO1 ≤ BDAC coordination | 0.883 | 0.738 | 0.659 |
| 5 | BCO2 ≤ BDAC coordination | 0.858 | ||
| 6 | BCO3 ≤ BDAC coordination | 0.679 | ||
| 7 | BMD1 ≤ BDAC modularity | 0.975 | 0.948 | 0.950 |
| 8 | BMD2 ≤ BDAC modularity | 0.974 | ||
| 9 | BPL1 ≤ BDAC planning | 0.957 | 0.914 | 0.921 |
| 10 | BPL2 ≤ BDAC planning | 0.962 | ||
| 11 | BRK1 ≤ BDAC relational knowledge | 0.922 | 0.786 | 0.823 |
| 12 | BRK2 ≤ BDAC relational knowledge | 0.892 | ||
| 13 | BTK1 ≤ BDAC technical knowledge | 0.950 | 0.899 | 0.909 |
| 14 | BTK2 ≤ BDAC technical knowledge | 0.956 | ||
| 15 | DMC1 ≤ DM commitment | 0.843 | 0.885 | 0.814 |
| 16 | DMC2 ≤ DM commitment | 0.922 | ||
| 17 | DMC3 ≤ DM commitment | 0.938 | ||
| 18 | DMQ1 ≤ DM quality | 0.904 | 0.789 | 0.710 |
| 19 | DMQ2 ≤ DM quality | 0.901 | ||
| 20 | DMQ3 ≤ DM quality | 0.709 | ||
| 21 | DMR2 ≤ DM rationality | 0.929 | 0.849 | 0.869 |
| 22 | DMR3 ≤ DM rationality | 0.935 | ||
| 23 | FCL1 ≤ FS low cost leadership | 0.669 | 0.693 | 0.620 |
| 24 | FCL2 ≤ FS low cost leadership | 0.892 | ||
| 25 | FCL3 ≤ FS low cost leadership | 0.785 | ||
| 26 | FMC1 ≤ FS (market competition) | 0.937 | 0.923 | 0.867 |
| 27 | FMC2 ≤ FS (market competition) | 0.906 | ||
| 28 | FMC3 ≤ FS (market competition) | 0.950 | ||
| 29 | FMS1 ≤ FS (marketing strategy) | 0.677 | 0.790 | 0.711 |
| 30 | FMS2 ≤ FS (marketing strategy) | 0.898 | ||
| 31 | FMS3 ≤ FS (marketing strategy) | 0.932 | ||
| 32 | ISE1 ≤ IS (effective information exchange) | 0.890 | 0.712 | 0.656 |
| 33 | ISE2 ≤ IS (effective information exchange) | 0.924 | ||
| 34 | ISE3 ≤ IS (effective information exchange) | 0.568 | ||
| 35 | ISH1 ≤ IS (human resources capability) | 0.544 | 0.673 | 0.619 |
| 36 | ISH2 ≤ IS (human resources capability) | 0.868 | ||
| 37 | ISH3 ≤ IS (human resources capability) | 0.900 | ||
| 38 | ISI1 ≤ SM (identification stakeholder need) | 0.820 | 0.778 | 0.690 |
| 39 | ISI2 ≤ SM (identification stakeholder need) | 0.826 | ||
| 40 | ISI3 ≤ SM (identification stakeholder need) | 0.847 | ||
| 41 | ISV1 ≤ IS (involvement in project) | 0.891 | 0.803 | 0.725 |
| 42 | ISV2 ≤ IS (involvement in project) | 0.926 | ||
| 43 | ISV3 ≤ IS (involvement in project) | 0.724 | ||
| 44 | FPF1 ≤ FP finance | 0.599 | 0.752 | 0.672 |
| 45 | FPF2 ≤ FP finance | 0.888 | ||
| 46 | FPF3 ≤ FP finance | 0.932 | ||
| 47 | FPN1 ≤ FP non-finance | 0.859 | 0.846 | 0.765 |
| 48 | FPN2 ≤ FP non-finance | 0.907 | ||
| 49 | FPN3 ≤ FP non-finance | 0.857 |
Existing DM process
| Stages | Description | Decision-maker |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Review and self-assessment; profile client, financial clause, scope of project and land acquisition | SVP marketing or SVP SBU |
| 2 | Proposal with noted or without notes | Proposal steering committee |
| 3 | Proposal fully complying without notes or still notes (stopped) | Proposal steering committee |
| 4 | Go or no-go proposal | BOD and proposal steering committee |
Cronbach’s alpha, CR and AVE
| Variables | Cronbach’s alpha | CR (rho-a) | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|
| BDAC | 0.958 | 0.965 | 0.661 |
| DM | 0.924 | 0.928 | 0.656 |
| FS | 0.897 | 0.909 | 0.562 |
| IS | 0.912 | 0.923 | 0.517 |
| FP | 0.858 | 0.893 | 0.603 |
Variables Measurement
| Variables construct | Definition | Second order | First order | Indicators | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BDAC | A company’s ability to capture and analyse data leads to an insightful generation that effectively organises, deploys its data, technology and talent. |
|
| 3 | Wamba et al. (2017), Shamim et al. (2020) and Yasmin et al. (2020) |
| DM | The process of obtaining quality information that allows decision-makers to better understand the impact. |
| 3 | Child and Hsieh (2014), Elbanna and Naguib (2009) and Kolbe et al. (2020) | |
| FS | A process that involves making strategic decisions regarding the organisation’s mission, goals and methods to achieve organisational goals. |
| 3 | Agyapong et al. (2020), Liu et al. (2020) and Varadarajan (2020) | |
| IS | Everything related to various managerial activities in order to implement strategic planning. |
| 3 | Moon (2018), Aydiner et al. (2019) and Wang et al. (2020) | |
| FP | Results and fundamentals that can satisfy stakeholders, who are considered to have: growth and performance. |
| 3 | Wamba et al. (2017) and Straub et al. (2020) |