Research Article

Complexity Relationship between Power and Trust in Hybrid Megaproject Governance: The Structural Equation Modelling Approach

Table 1

Factor loadings, AVE, CR, and Cronbach’s alpha of indicators.

Research variableMeasurementsOuter loadingsR2Cronbach’s α

Power asymmetryPA1: we believe that critical resource control will increase power asymmetry0.8620.7450.911
PA2: we believe that information control will increase power asymmetry0.7850.735
PA3: we believe that unfair risk sharing will increase power asymmetry0.8250.722
PA4: we believe that critical information control will increase power asymmetry0.8540.825
Power sharingPS1: we will disclose information on the master plan and schedule arrangements to another party0.7550.7110.836
PS2: facing technical difficulties, we will use resource sharing to work together with another party0.8360.812
PS3: dynamic risk sharing mechanisms will be used across the life cycle of the megaproject0.8140.734
PA4: we will use deterministic contracts as much as possible to objectively increase the transparency of power0.7910.713
Trust levelInter-organizational (owner and general contractor)TLEO1: owner believes that another party has the ability to achieve expected results0.8320.7910.869
TLEO2: owner believes that another party can meet the technological and management requirements of the project0.8950.823
TLEO3: owner believes that another party can be trusted and will fulfill their promises0.8650.768
TEOL4: owner believes that another party will consider our interests when making a major decision0.7920.698
TLEO5: owner believes that general contractor and departments will not make use of our problems to make profits0.7850.735
Intra-organizational (general contractor and its departments)TLIO1: general contractor believes that departments have the ability to achieve expected results0.8440.7680.824
TLIO2: general contractor believes that departments can meet the technological and management requirements0.8790.752
TLIO3: general contractor believes that departments can be trusted and will fulfill their promises0.7970.743
TLIO4: general contractor believes that departments will abide by the contract throughout the whole project0.7270.586
TLIO5: departments believe that general contractor will consider our interests when making a major decision0.8630.835
Hybrid governance performanceHGP1: urban rail transit project cost control is effective, and work is completed within the budget0.7840.7240.843
HGP2: urban rail transit project appears to have significant cost overruns0.8330.785
HGP3: compared with other similar projects in the industry, our organization’s project cost control is better0.8550.736
HGP4: in the urban rail transit project, the responsibilities, rights, and obligations are divided fairly and reasonably0.8940.841
HGP5: in the urban rail transit project, the contract terms are clear and satisfactory0.7990.720
HGP6: in the urban rail transit project, contract goals are consistent with organizations’ needs0.7370.613
HGP7: in the urban rail transit project, the contract is considered effective in controlling opportunistic behavior0.8420.759
HGP8: we regularly check and evaluate the behavior and performance between organizations under the contract0.8310.791

, , , , , , , , and item reliability indicate a significance level of . RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; CFI = comparative fit index.