Dynamic capabilities and project owner research

Capability is distinguished from competency and leadership, which are concepts of skills and knowledge accumulated by individuals (Le Deist & Winterton, Reference Le Deist and Winterton2005; Sankaran, Reference Sankaran2018). Teece, Pisano, and Shuen (Reference Teece, Pisano and Shuen1997) defined dynamic capability as the ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure the firm’s internal and external technologies and resources to adapt to the changing external environment. Eisenhardt and Martin (Reference Eisenhardt and Martin2000) argued that dynamic capabilities focused on improving organizational processes and strategic routines. Numerous studies have begun to discuss the challenges and management issues that organizations encounter with uncertainty and ambiguity from a dynamic capability perspective. Melkonian and Picq (Reference Melkonian and Picq2011) proposed to approach the building processes of capabilities as a dynamic and multilevel course to strengthen project-based organizations in inconsistency, chaos, struggle for resources, and lack of coordination. Lobo and Whyte (Reference Lobo and Whyte2017) argued that aligning and reconciling capabilities is critical for organizations to deal with conditions of rapid technological change and high interdependence across heterogeneous organizations. The theoretical foundations of dynamic capabilities are also the main theoretical basis of this study, which guide the identification and analysis of the literature in this study. The theoretical foundations are the resource-based view, evolutionary economics theory, and knowledge-based view (Barney, Reference Barney1991; Grant & Baden-Fuller, Reference Grant and Baden-Fuller2004; Leiringer & Zhang, Reference Leiringer and Zhang2021). Therefore, several scholars have explored the micro-foundations, factors, and application contexts of dynamic capabilities, combining dynamic capability theory with additional contemporary contexts to study numerous black box issues in project and organization management (Baía & Ferreira, Reference Baía and Ferreira2019; Cristofaro & Lovallo, Reference Cristofaro and Lovallo2022; Jiao, Jifeng, & Ying, Reference Jiao, Jifeng and Ying2021).

Some studies use the key role of the project owner as an entry point to discuss the dynamic capabilities of owners (Winch & Leiringer, Reference Winch and Leiringer2016; Zwikael, Meredith, & Smyrk, Reference Zwikael, Meredith and Smyrk2019). In construction projects, the owner is an organizational entity that raises project funds, defines specific objectives for project assets, manages the temporary project organization that delivers the assets, establishes business relationships with suppliers and contractors, and then realizes the benefits of the project through operations (Maytorena-Sanchez & Winch, Reference Maytorena-Sanchez and Winch2022). Zwikael, Meredith, and Smyrk (Reference Zwikael, Meredith and Smyrk2019) argued that the owner is responsible for project delivery and benefits realization in unstable and dynamic environments. The attributes and qualities of the owner as a resource integrator and primary decision-maker are crucial to improving the resilience of the entire temporary organization (Pavez, Gómez, Laulié, & González, Reference Pavez, Gómez, Laulié and González2021; Winch & Cha, Reference Winch and Cha2020). Particularly, owners have the typical characteristics of organizational ambidexterity, which means that an organization achieves consistency and adaptability simultaneously (Gibson & Birkinshaw, Reference Gibson and Birkinshaw2004). The participation of owner in both exploitation (conformity-oriented) and exploration (adaptability-oriented) is conducive to the balance between stability and change (Adam, Lindahl, & Leiringer, Reference Adam, Lindahl and Leiringer2020; O’Reilly & Tushman, Reference O’Reilly and Tushman2008). Extending this line of thinking, several studies have closely aligned owners with dynamic capability theory (Gann, Davies, & Dodgson, Reference Gann, Davies, Dodgson and Flyvbjerg2017; Winch & Leiringer, Reference Winch and Leiringer2016). In complex and changing missions, owners must exercise organizational ambidexterity and develop multidimensional dynamic capabilities to improve organizational resilience.

Owner dynamic capabilities: A theoretical lens of temporary organizational resilience

From the capability perspective, organizational resilience is interpreted as the ability to anticipate, recover, and adapt to systemic change under a variety of conditions (Yang, Wang, Zhu, & Müller, Reference Yang, Wang, Zhu and Müller2022). Owner dynamic capabilities are defined as the dynamic capabilities required by owners to initiate adaptively, execute, and close investment projects and realize project benefits in uncertainty (Davies & Brady, Reference Davies and Brady2016; Winch & Leiringer, Reference Winch and Leiringer2016). Owner dynamic capabilities can enhance the collective construct of temporary organizations and increase resource availability and recovery efficiency, thus significantly improving organizational resilience (Stordy, Zerjav, & Kanjanabootra, Reference Stordy, Zerjav and Kanjanabootra2021). Therefore, owner dynamic capabilities can be used as a theoretical lens of temporary organizational resilience, further explaining how resilience can be regarded as the ability to anticipate adversity, absorb stress, and overcome crises (Rodríguez-Sánchez, Guinot, Chiva, & López-Cabrales, Reference Rodríguez-Sánchez, Guinot, Chiva and López-Cabrales2021; Wang, Geng, Dang, & Zhang, Reference Wang, Geng, Dang and Zhang2022).

Compared to dynamic managerial capabilities, owner dynamic capabilities must mobilize a broader range of interorganizational resources to address the challenges of coupling uncertainty and complexity (Helfat & Martin, Reference Helfat and Martin2015; Winch & Cha, Reference Winch and Cha2020). Specifically, owner dynamic capabilities must ensure the prompt recovery, adaptation, and smooth delivery of the project when faced with unexpected crises and stress (Grabher, Reference Grabher2002). Xia and Chan (Reference Xia and Chan2010) identified six key competencies of design-build owners, which mainly include scope management, contract management, and stakeholder collaboration. Winch and Leiringer (Reference Winch and Leiringer2016) and Gulino, Sergeeva, and Winch (Reference Gulino, Sergeeva and Winch2020) deconstructed the owner dynamic capabilities as strategic capabilities, commercial capabilities, governance capabilities, and transformational capabilities from a process theory perspective. Lindblad and Gustavsson (Reference Lindblad and Gustavsson2021) illustrated the important role of the absorptive capability of owners in driving industry change and innovation. Maytorena-Sanchez and Winch (Reference Maytorena-Sanchez and Winch2022) described owner dynamic capabilities as articulating the voice of the customer and operations, demonstrating a value-driven mindset, creating and managing complex systems, and recruiting, building, and retaining talent. Furthermore, as the initiator of the project, the owner pursues growth rather than a competitive advantage (Winch & Leiringer, Reference Winch and Leiringer2016). Owner dynamic capabilities should improve temporary organizational resilience and focus on the efficient transformation of resources and the benefits of project implementation (Cha, Newman, & Winch, Reference Cha, Newman and Winch2015; Winch & Leiringer, Reference Winch and Leiringer2016). Although previous studies have shown a strong interest in owner dynamic capabilities, the identification of dimensions is complex, and the deep issues behind these dimensions are simplistic. Owner dynamic capabilities are loosely identified, and relevant articles are typically based on regional data or cases, with minimal knowledge accumulation and generalization between studies (Leiringer & Zhang, Reference Leiringer and Zhang2021).

Data collection

The literature related to owner dynamic capabilities in construction projects was explored in two authoritative databases, namely Scopus and Web of Science, to collect data scientifically and efficiently. The two databases cover a wider journal range and are readily updated not only with printed literature but also with early versions before print publication (Falagas, Pitsouni, Malietzis, & Pappas, Reference Falagas, Pitsouni, Malietzis and Pappas2008). Based on the definition of the owner dynamic capabilities in the previous section and the study scope of construction projects, the search rules employed in the title/abstract/keyword field of the selected database were as follows: ((TS = (owner* OR client*)) AND (TS = (dynamic AND (capabilit* OR competenc* OR abilit* OR capacit*))) AND (TS = (construction* OR ‘infrastructure*’ OR ‘civil engineering project*’))). This study used the term ‘owner’ to denote its large business responsibility, but the term ‘client’ often refers to the same role that focuses on the contractual relationship (Cha, Newman, & Winch, Reference Cha, Newman and Winch2015). Therefore, both keywords were considered in the search rules. The selection of synonyms in the keywords referred to the relevant literature, such as Oppong, Chan, and Dansoh (Reference Oppong, Chan and Dansoh2017) and Xia, Chen, Xie, and Liu (Reference Xia, Chen, Xie and Liu2018). The dynamic capability theory formally appeared in authoritative journals in 1997 and gradually permeated the project management field (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, Reference Teece, Pisano and Shuen1997). Therefore, potentially relevant articles were searched in the specified databases with a time frame of January 1997 to May 2022. Only peer-reviewed articles were considered for the current study. At this stage, 185 articles were retrieved from the Scopus database and 368 articles from the Web of Science database. A total of 123 duplicates were then removed from the two databases. The authors performed two rounds of article filtering by reading the abstracts and content. In the first round of filtering, 213 articles whose abstracts did not mention concepts related to the owner dynamic capabilities were excluded. In the second round of filtering, articles that satisfied at least one of the following criteria were retained: (1) described adaptive activities or capabilities that should be available to the owner under dynamic environments and (2) discussed the factors relevant to these activities or capabilities. The two authors independently evaluated the eligibility of the articles to ensure the accuracy of filtering and conducted discussion until a consensus was reached. A total of 42 articles were retained after filtering. Moreover, backward and forward searches were conducted in accordance with the remaining articles (Webster & Watson, Reference Webster and Watson2002). Finally, 44 articles were selected as the target literature for this study.

Data analysis

Following the data collection of relevant articles, the 44 articles were then imported into CiteSpace for bibliometric analysis, which can provide a holistic view of research trends and hotspots. CiteSpace analyzes key data of literature through network modeling and systematically presents the knowledge landscape of specific knowledge areas, offering significant advantages in dissecting research frontiers and visualizing data (Chen, Reference Chen2014). Among them, keyword co-occurrence analysis aims to evaluate the high-frequency keywords in the literature database, which can often find the research hotspots in this field (Chen, Reference Chen2014). Keyword emergence analysis focuses on analyzing the Citation Bursts that have been widely cited in a short period, which can imply the current research status and hotspots (Kleinberg, Reference Kleinberg2003).

The content analysis was conducted to explore the theoretical research process of owner dynamic capabilities and then identify and analyze the dimensions and key factors. Content analysis is not conducted linearly; thus, it is less standardized and formulaic compared with quantitative analysis (Polit & Beck, Reference Polit and Beck2004). A qualitative and inductive content analysis was used in this study due to insufficient prior knowledge of owner dynamic capabilities and fragmented current understanding (Winch & Leiringer, Reference Winch and Leiringer2016). Qualitative content analysis is based on valid inferences and interpretations that gradually condense the raw data into categories or themes (Zhang & Wildemuth, Reference Zhang and Wildemuth2016). The authors used inductive reasoning to derive themes and categories from the data through careful examination and constant comparison. Content analysis methods operationally follow specific analysis and data conceptualization steps (Bengtsson, Reference Bengtsson2016). This study follows four main stages outlined by Bengtsson (Reference Bengtsson2016): the decontextualization of the analysis unit, the recontextualization, the categorization, and the compilation.

The three authors agreed on a coding framework based on the purpose of the study, as shown in Table 1. In the decontextualization stage, the authors read the text repeatedly and understood the data as a whole before scientifically and informedly breaking it down into small meaning units. The authors identified and coded the meaning units that describe the dimensions and influencing factors separately. In the recontextualization stage, the authors checked whether the coded meaning units covered all aspects relevant to the purpose of the study. The meaning units were reread along with the original data, and their meanings were appropriately simplified to ensure that the original data were adequately analyzed and captured (Bengtsson, Reference Bengtsson2016). Additional irrelevant data were eliminated. In the categorization stage, themes and categories were identified from the coded meaning units, which are the essence of the raw data and must be supported by the literature or theoretical basis (Dey, Reference Dey2003). In the compilation phase, the author developed an analysis and report to further manifest the identified themes and categories and narrate and summarize them using the visible and obvious (Berg, Lune, & Lune, Reference Berg, Lune and Lune2012). The raw data were analyzed and coded by two authors separately to reduce inherent subjectivity and potential discrepancies and to ensure the credibility and reliability of the study. Differences in judgments were compared, and opinions were discussed until a consensus was reached. Table 2 shows the decontextualization, recontextualization, categorization, and compilation of some of the data for the cognition capabilities dimension, illustrating the exact process of content analysis.

Table 1.

Codebook for content analysis

Table 2.

Example of the content analysis process

Bibliometric analysis of literature keywords

The author runs CiteSpace 6.1.R6 to obtain the keyword co-occurrence map and keyword emergence of the target literature from 1997 to 2022 to improve the validity of the results. As shown in Figure 2, the top five keywords of centrality are ‘project management’, ‘construction industry’, ‘dynamic capability’, ‘critical success factor’, and ‘performance’, which are consistent with the subject of the literature retrieved in this study. More importantly, keywords such as ‘decision-making’, ‘organizational capability’, ‘project capability’, and ‘systems integration’ also occur with high centrality. This occurrence indicates the enthusiasm and attention of scholars in the research of these concepts and also confirms the significance of owner dynamic capabilities in construction project research from another perspective. Citation Bursts were identified by examining the temporal distribution of keywords and detecting emergent words with high-frequency change and fast growth rate to further dissect research trends. As shown in Figure 3, ‘critical success factors’ and ‘construction industry’ began to emerge in 2004 and 2006, respectively, and they are the two keywords that emerged early as traditional research fields. In addition, ‘dynamic capability’ and ‘client’ have been a concern for scholars since 2017. Among them, the emergent strength of ‘dynamic capability’ reaches 1.31, which indicates that this field has received extensive attention and has become a popular topic. Overall, the bibliometric analysis intuitively validates the emphasis and extensive focus of the 44 pieces of literature on owner dynamic capabilities. Co-occurring keywords and Citation Bursts provide multiple theoretical lenses for the content analysis of the literature, which served as the rationale and basis for the qualitative analysis.

Figure 2.

Keyword co-occurrence map of owner dynamic capability research in construction projects.

Figure 3.

A summary list of references with strongest Citation Bursts.

Dimensions of owner dynamic capabilities

After a holistic approach, four dimensions of owner dynamic capabilities are identified through content analysis, as shown in Table 3 and Figure 4.

Table 3.

Findings from studies on the dimensions of owner dynamic capabilities

Figure 4.

Dimensions of owner dynamic capabilities.

Cognition capabilities

As a project investor and purchaser of project delivery services, the owner typically plays a fundamental role in the success of the project (Hui, Davis-Blake, & Broschak, Reference Hui, Davis-Blake and Broschak2008). Simultaneously, the owner is also a role model in the project and should coordinate the strategic management of the project organization from the perspective of values establishment and maintenance (Lindblad & Gustavsson, Reference Lindblad and Gustavsson2021). Walsh (Reference Walsh1995) believed that management cognition capability is the belief and psychological basis for decision-making, which includes perception, attention, and logical reasoning capability (Helfat & Peteraf, Reference Helfat and Peteraf2005). The cognitive foundation includes awareness of historical experience, anticipation and certainty of future events, and a clear understanding of stakeholder demands (Adner & Helfat, Reference Adner and Helfat2003). Therefore, as the project decision-maker, the owner should have outstanding cognition capabilities. The owner should have a comprehensive and systematic vision of the project objectives (Adam & Lindahl, Reference Adam and Lindahl2017) and a clear understanding of the scope and nature of the work (Zerjav, Edkins, & Davies, Reference Zerjav, Edkins and Davies2018). The temporary organization requires multiple coordinated and coherent members, and achieving this group effect requires not only constraints under a rigid institution but also self-discipline under unified values (Mulholland, Chan, Canning, & Ejohwomu, Reference Mulholland, Chan, Canning and Ejohwomu2020). Therefore, the owners should consider the mission and project vision of each organization from a holistic perspective (Winch & Cha, Reference Winch and Cha2020), while focusing on the realization of business value and social responsibility (Maytorena-Sanchez & Winch, Reference Maytorena-Sanchez and Winch2022). The project vision should be continuously conveyed to the stakeholders, and owners should continuously export and consolidate the right values of the participants and promote their affinity with the temporary organization (Yong & Mustaffa, Reference Yong and Mustaffa2013). In addition, logical and deductive problem-solving thinking is essential for understanding and anticipating difficulties in the project process while perceiving potential opportunities in the project environment (Adam & Lindahl, Reference Adam and Lindahl2017; Adner & Helfat, Reference Adner and Helfat2003), for example, having holistic cognition of project risks and considering the benefits of innovative and sustainable building. Managerial attention and foresight can affect the diversity of resource allocation, which in turn changes the adaptation of the project to the external environment (Laamanen & Wallin, Reference Laamanen and Wallin2009). Moreover, owners should have a clear understanding of their own needs (Forgues, Koskela, & Lejeune, Reference Forgues, Koskela, Lejeune and Hughes2007) and anticipate and precisely understand the needs of end users (Maytorena-Sanchez & Winch, Reference Maytorena-Sanchez and Winch2022). Particularly for owners, differences in cognition capability can lead to different strategic and consequential decisions (Adner & Helfat, Reference Adner and Helfat2003).

Resilient change management capabilities

Construction projects encounter diverse and unexpected challenges at different stages of the life cycle (Aaltonen & Kujala, Reference Aaltonen and Kujala2010), which are related to the change management of the owner due to the varying levels of involvement of project participants and the dynamic nature of the external environment (Winch & Leiringer, Reference Winch and Leiringer2016). The dynamic capability theory emphasizes the need to explore, create, or adjust operational routines in uncertain and dynamic environments (Gulino, Sergeeva, & Winch, Reference Gulino, Sergeeva and Winch2020). Khan, Farooq, and Rasheed (Reference Khan, Farooq and Rasheed2019) identified organizational resilience as a dynamic capability that contains serious organizational routines including resilience sensing, resilience seizing, and resilience reconfiguration to deal with threats and opportunities from the external environment. The organizational resilience of the owner is crucial to coping with challenges in uncertain contexts (Hetemi, Gemünden, & Meré, Reference Hetemi, Gemünden and Meré2020; Levander, Engström, Sardén, & Stehn, Reference Levander, Engström, Sardén and Stehn2011), such as unknown technologies, ambiguous stakeholder needs, and dynamic operating environments (Davies, Dodgson, & Gann, Reference Davies, Dodgson and Gann2016). The owner can structure and maintain resilient change management capabilities to face uncertain environmental anomalies and scan potential opportunities from changing market and technological conditions (Khan, Farooq, & Rasheed, Reference Khan, Farooq and Rasheed2019; Schilke, Hu, & Helfat, Reference Schilke, Hu and Helfat2018).

Being proactive is an important characteristic of project owners that shapes resilient change management capability, which is necessary for effective owner–participant interaction and is required for trust-based project governance (Hetemi, Gemünden, & Meré, Reference Hetemi, Gemünden and Meré2020). Resilient change management capabilities involve adaptive adjustment of expectations in an unexpected and equivocal environment (Yong & Mustaffa, Reference Yong and Mustaffa2013), proactive monitoring and feedback on projects (Sinesilassie, Tripathi, Tabish, & Jha, Reference Sinesilassie, Tripathi, Tabish and Jha2019), continuous involvement in projects to enable timely decision-making (Iyer & Jha, Reference Iyer and Jha2006), and responding to local conditions in cross-regional projects (Bonham, Reference Bonham2013). Meanwhile, the owner should act as a key agent in keeping resilience to lead, drive, and encourage change in dynamic environments (Bonham, Reference Bonham2013; Lindblad & Gustavsson, Reference Lindblad and Gustavsson2021). In dynamic environments where organizations may need to perform extensive reorganization (Adam & Lindahl, Reference Adam and Lindahl2017), the organizational resilience of owners is critical to recovery in the face of project adversity (Häkkinen & Belloni, Reference Häkkinen and Belloni2011). For example, in long-term projects with multiple parties involved, Ludvig, Stenberg, and Gluch (Reference Ludvig, Stenberg and Gluch2013) considered changing organizational structures as an important resilience capability of owners that can ‘shake organizational boundaries’ and provide an enabling environment for achieving long-term dynamic goals (Gulino, Sergeeva, & Winch, Reference Gulino, Sergeeva and Winch2020). As the basis for change management, owners should maintain financial stability and assess economic feasibility (Garvin & Cheah, Reference Garvin and Cheah2004).

Integrated organization capabilities

An integrated organization is a collaborative and integrated approach to solving complex and uncertain challenges by the key participants (Che Ibrahim, Costello, & Wilkinson, Reference Che Ibrahim, Costello and Wilkinson2015). This approach can be viewed as a team of multiple entities, including the owner, consultant, designer, and contractor (Che Ibrahim, Costello, & Wilkinson, Reference Che Ibrahim, Costello and Wilkinson2013). The owner has an important role in the integrated organization as a proactive organizer and coordinator. The owner should be clear that alliance building is necessary and that all participants should be involved early in the project process (Häkkinen & Belloni, Reference Häkkinen and Belloni2011). The owner should actively interact effectively with the project participants during the project process to improve the level of network collaboration (Hetemi, Gemünden, & Meré, Reference Hetemi, Gemünden and Meré2020). They should be able to solve the problems of insufficient motivation and weak trust among members due to the temporary nature of the integrated organization and the uncertainty level of the participants’ knowledge (Liu, Yu, Sun, & Yan, Reference Liu, Yu, Sun and Yan2021). In a temporary organization with members from different professions, the project owner, especially the government owner, should break away from the traditional role of setting and adopting rules and explore new patterns of communication to connect all members involved (Bonham, Reference Bonham2013). The owner should promote rich and efficient communication to improve organizational resilience (Levander et al., Reference Levander, Engström, Sardén and Stehn2011).

The integrated organization capabilities include establishing and maintaining an open and collaborative organizational environment (Bonham, Reference Bonham2013), creating and managing alliances to achieve technology catch-up and capability enhancement (Anand, Oriani, & Vassolo, Reference Anand, Oriani and Vassolo2010). Owners should change the traditional siloed work culture to an open and inclusive one (Gulino, Sergeeva, & Winch, Reference Gulino, Sergeeva and Winch2020), be clear about what should be done and by whom (Levander et al., Reference Levander, Engström, Sardén and Stehn2011), and facilitate collaboration among all members (Adam & Lindahl, Reference Adam and Lindahl2017). Owners should maintain organizational trust through ongoing relationship management strategies (Yong & Mustaffa, Reference Yong and Mustaffa2013), maintain rapport, and focus on interorganizational team building and project incentives (Hu, Chan, & Le, Reference Hu, Chan and Le2015). In addition, owners should have the ability to integrate and manage interorganizational relationships with an alliance mindset for risk allocation and responsibility delegation (Wen, Qiang, & An, Reference Wen, Qiang and An2017). Oriented toward building rapport, owners should have extensive communication skills and a comprehensive communication platform, such as formal and informal communications in parallel, thereby establishing a network communication platform and adapting communication style and approach to the situation (Ludvig, Stenberg, & Gluch, Reference Ludvig, Stenberg and Gluch2013). Moreover, owners should maintain close communication and feedback with consultants and experts in different fields (Levander et al., Reference Levander, Engström, Sardén and Stehn2011), creating a respectful and non-judgmental environment where project teams trust each other and communicate openly (Gulino, Sergeeva, & Winch, Reference Gulino, Sergeeva and Winch2020).

Strategic innovation capabilities

Strategic innovation capabilities can help owners address challenges and establish formal innovation processes. The development of an innovation strategy facilitates the planning, coordination, and orchestration of the innovation resources and capabilities of project participants and research institutions considering project community goals (Davies, MacAulay, DeBarro, & Thurston, Reference Davies, MacAulay, DeBarro and Thurston2014; Dodgson, Gann, MacAulay, & Davies, Reference Dodgson, Gann, MacAulay and Davies2015). According to the knowledge-based view, both explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge are essential for owners to organize innovative activities. Such knowledge is a prerequisite for effective owner leadership, risk sharing, and relationship governance in the innovation process (Sergeeva, Reference Sergeeva2020). In addition, owners must continuously improve based on the accumulation of rich experience and focus on the transfer of experience, new management methods, and concepts between organizations (Yong & Mustaffa, Reference Yong and Mustaffa2013). Resource reserves and allocations are necessary for the development of strategic innovation capabilities. The uniqueness and complexity of innovation activities often require owners to obtain scarce and valuable resources (Wang, Tang, & Li, Reference Wang, Tang and Li2013) and to match ‘bespoke’ resource orchestrations to meet innovation needs (Gibb & Isack, Reference Gibb and Isack2001).

As shown in Figure 4, the owner dynamic capabilities are divided into four dimensions for multifaceted project characteristics and contexts. Cognitive capabilities focus on long-term strategies that relate to investment selection and project mission definition (Winch & Leiringer, Reference Winch and Leiringer2016). Resilient change management capabilities primarily help address dynamic environments and opportunities, such as coping with uncertainty and ambiguity in the financial environment and policy contexts (Gulino, Sergeeva, & Winch, Reference Gulino, Sergeeva and Winch2020), and scanning competitive opportunities from market-related resources (Danneels, Reference Danneels2016). Integrated organization capabilities are aimed at addressing potential problems of complex stakeholder networks. The heterogeneous and interactive nature of stakeholders determines the central role of owners in stakeholder networks (Adam & Lindahl, Reference Adam and Lindahl2017). Owner-led alliances and effective communication are key to resolving stakeholder conflicts and increasing the flow of resources, information, and knowledge between organizations (Levander et al., Reference Levander, Engström, Sardén and Stehn2011). Strategic innovation capabilities focus on the integrated innovation process, such as knowledge transfer, and strategic resource orchestration (Vu, Cu, Min, & Wang, Reference Vu, Cu, Min and Wang2017; Yong & Mustaffa, Reference Yong and Mustaffa2013).

Key factors of owner dynamic capabilities

This study identified descriptions of key factors from 15 literature sources and conducted content analysis through a process of decontextualization, recontextualization, categorization, and compilation. Based on classic literature, the factors influencing dynamic capabilities were discussed at the environmental, organizational, and individual levels (e.g. Fainshmidt, Wenger, Pezeshkan, & Mallon, Reference Fainshmidt, Wenger, Pezeshkan and Mallon2019; Jiao, Jifeng, & Ying, Reference Jiao, Jifeng and Ying2021; Schilke, Hu, & Helfat, Reference Schilke, Hu and Helfat2018). Ultimately, the key factors of owner dynamic capabilities were classified and compiled into three categories, namely project-level, organizational-level, and individual-level factors. Table 4 shows the key factors of owner dynamic capabilities identified through content analysis. The impact of key factors on owner dynamic capabilities is visualized based on the analysis below, as shown in Figure 5.

Table 4.

Findings from studies on the key factors of owner dynamic capabilities

Figure 5.

Key factors of owner dynamic capabilities.

Project-level factors

The dynamic level of the project’s external environments (e.g., changes in investment demand, market competition, and the workforce) puts the owner under tremendous pressure, with varying degrees of knock-on effects on each owner dynamic capability (Adam, Lindahl, & Leiringer, Reference Adam, Lindahl and Leiringer2020). When the external environment is highly dynamic, the facilitating effect on resilient change management capabilities is strong. Simultaneously, this condition will gradually introduce new operation capabilities (Zerjav, Edkins, & Davies, Reference Zerjav, Edkins and Davies2018). However, in the short term, rapid changes in the market and competitive environment can weaken the cognition capability of the owner and integrated organization capabilities. Overall, a volatile external environment can facilitate the development of owner dynamic capabilities (Adam, Lindahl, & Leiringer, Reference Adam, Lindahl and Leiringer2020). In addition, the external market environment, including industry technology innovation, the level of economic development, and competitive changes in the industry, are key influencing factors in the development of the owner dynamic capabilities (Xia & Chan, Reference Xia and Chan2010). Changes in the characteristics of the market environment cause turbulence in the owner’s business area, and the owner must improve dynamic capabilities to enhance competitiveness and develop new markets (Gibb & Isack, Reference Gibb and Isack2001). Owners need to improve their perception of opportunities and reallocate resources to cope with the capability gap, which will lead to the improvement and innovation of other owner dynamic capabilities.

Institutional logic refers to the rules, policies, social culture, and belief systems that play a leading role in the behavior of subjects in the organizational field (Friedland, Reference Friedland2014). The institutional context sets the stage for innovation and professional role development for owners, and the institutional logic may directly affect the mission and organizational systems of the owner (Bonham, Reference Bonham2013). On the one hand, mature institutional logic can shape owner dynamic capabilities. Through the constraints of formal institutions such as laws and regulations, as well as the incentives of informal institutions such as social norms and local culture, owners have a highly comprehensive understanding of project success and value, and their sense of responsibility and mission is also high (Gulino, Sergeeva, & Winch, Reference Gulino, Sergeeva and Winch2020). On the other hand, the complexity of institutional logic affects the accumulation and development of owner dynamic capabilities (Lindblad & Gustavsson, Reference Lindblad and Gustavsson2021). In the absence of market pull, promotion and institutional incentives by government authorities play an important role in building owner dynamic capabilities (Häkkinen & Belloni, Reference Häkkinen and Belloni2011). Simultaneously, the local institutional logic and participation level have a significant influence on the development of owner dynamic capabilities (Gadisa & Zhou, Reference Gadisa and Zhou2020). The low adaptability of the owner in the relatively unfamiliar local field and the tightening of relevant policies and regulations may lead to the degradation of its integrated organization capabilities and even strategic innovation capabilities.

Organizational-level factors

Organizational structure is a critical factor. Within the organization, strong links between different areas of expertise are an important basis for maintaining organizational ambidexterity, and exploitation and exploration based on a sound organizational structure can contribute to the owner dynamic capabilities (Adam, Lindahl, & Leiringer, Reference Adam, Lindahl and Leiringer2020). Conversely, for example, interorganizational segmentation is a structural barrier to the development of cognition capabilities of owners (Lindblad & Gustavsson, Reference Lindblad and Gustavsson2021). Among multiple participants, the organizational structure affects the owner’s perception of value. The types of values among the participants, the power owned and utilized by the owner, and the distribution of responsibilities in the organization directly affect the cognition capabilities of owners (Ghannoum, Antar, Daoud, & Hamzeh, Reference Ghannoum, Antar, Daoud and Hamzeh2019). Social integration mechanisms are the basis for building systematic interorganizational structures and developing and exercising integrated organization capabilities. The lack of social integration mechanisms is an enormous obstacle for owners to absorb external knowledge (Lindblad & Gustavsson, Reference Lindblad and Gustavsson2021). Similarly, owner dynamic capabilities are influenced by the reduced integration between technology and personnel due to poor organizational structure (Too, Reference Too2012).

Organizational culture provides flexibility drivers for organizations, and owners with cultural strengths can accumulate good dynamic capabilities over time. For example, Zerjav, Edkins, and Davies (Reference Zerjav, Edkins and Davies2018) indicated that the long-standing goal of reducing uncertainty in the organizational culture helps in the reconfiguration of owner dynamic capabilities in the transition phase. In some cases, a poor culture of entrenched collectivist thinking, resistance to change, and excessive focus on short-term goals within the organization is a significant impediment to the development of the owner’s resilient change management capabilities, integrated organization capabilities, and cognition capabilities (Ghannoum et al., Reference Ghannoum, Antar, Daoud and Hamzeh2019).

Individual-level factors

Managers of owner units exercise control over the resources of their departments and make key decisions, and differences in the perceptions of individual managers will lead to different strategic decisions and outcomes (Helfat & Peteraf, Reference Helfat and Peteraf2015). Differences in managers’ perceptions of the project and the owner’s role exist affecting the construction of the owner dynamic capabilities, and the attention and foresight of managers influence the diversity of resource allocations, which in turn continuously adjust the owner dynamic capabilities (Forgues, Koskela, & Lejeune, Reference Forgues, Koskela, Lejeune and Hughes2007; Too, Reference Too2012). In addition, managerial experience at the individual-level affects knowledge-based human, social, and organizational capital at the organizational level. For example, the managerial experience can contribute to team cohesion through experience sharing, to interpersonal interaction, and thus to the cognition capabilities of owners (Lindblad & Gustavsson, Reference Lindblad and Gustavsson2021). Cognitive inertia is a psychological characteristic developed by managers after a long period of directed thinking, which manifests itself as reliance on subjective assumptions and assertions (Kozhevnikov, Reference Kozhevnikov2007). Cognitive inertia can lead managers to ignore changes in the external environment, which in turn reduces the cognition capabilities of owners and resilient change management capabilities, and inhibits the owner dynamic capabilities from contributing to project success (Forgues, Koskela, & Lejeune, Reference Forgues, Koskela, Lejeune and Hughes2007). Continued cognitive inertia generates organizational rigidity in core capabilities, stagnating or even degrading the overall owner dynamic capability development (Heffernan, Reference Heffernan2003).

Employee creativity is a personal attribute characteristic at the individual level, and the impact of sustainability and solidity of the personal attribute characteristic on dynamic capabilities is outstanding (Teece, Reference Teece2012). Change within the organization of an owner is experiential, and much of the dynamism comes from employee creativity (Ghannoum et al., Reference Ghannoum, Antar, Daoud and Hamzeh2019). Encouraging employee empowerment and motivating employees to feel, think, and act creatively in performing tasks will provide improvements in the owner’s overall way of operating and enhance the adaptability of the owner dynamic capabilities (Ghannoum et al., Reference Ghannoum, Antar, Daoud and Hamzeh2019; Salvato & Vassolo, Reference Salvato and Vassolo2018).

Contributions and limitations

By taking the construction industry from a specific industry perspective, this study forms a systematic interpretation of owner dynamic capabilities, which augments the capability framework in owner organizations and resilience studies, providing a solid foundation for future studies. This study serves as a valuable reference for appreciating the research statutes of owner dynamic capabilities. Moreover, this current study can be used as the basis for empirical research in related fields and provides fertile ground for further exploring the internal mechanism and evaluation of owner dynamic capabilities. From a practical perspective, the results of this study have implications for owner organizations, government agencies, and construction companies. The importance of outstanding owners has been emphasized, and the authors have highlighted the need for the utilization and development of owner dynamic capabilities. Practitioners can track the main contradictions that owners are currently facing against the actual situation and seek some strategies for owners to improve their capabilities. Accordingly, owner organizations in other industries can obtain guidance from this study to assess and upgrade their owner dynamic capabilities.

Despite the numerous contributions of this study, a few limitations cannot be ignored. Only peer-reviewed English articles were considered in this study, and some of the valuable findings may have been overlooked. In addition, this study is based on scientific qualitative research methods and proven theories to ensure the accuracy and credibility of the results, but the subjectivity of the coding process is still unavoidable. Finally, the construction project was chosen as the subject, and the specific roles played by owners lead to the possibility that some of the conclusions may be specific to construction projects. Therefore, future research could extend the framework of this study to a broad range of areas.

Future research directions