Enhancing Sustainability in Project Management: The Role of Stakeholder Engagement and Knowledge Management in Virtual Team Environments. (2023)

Author(s): Gisele Blak Bernat (corresponding author) [1,2,*]; Eduardo Linhares Qualharini [1,2,3]; Marcela Souto Castro [4,5]

1. Introduction

Project management plays an essential role in most companies around the world seeking successful accomplishments through structured practices to generate value with projects based on the strategic planning. Sustainability in project management (SPM)’s relationship to project success has led to a new perspective in project management research [1]. In the last decade, authors bought to light discussions of the shifting critical success factors of projects from the short-term perspective—focused in time, budget, and quality indicators—to a long-term approach taking into account social, environmental, and economic priorities, known as the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) concept [1,2,3,4].

There is general agreement among authors that the project management community has not reached a consensus about a standard framework for SPM [5]. It is also generally agreed that SPM requires a connection between the project and the organization’s strategy in order to lead managers to proper decision-making regarding projects, organization, and society as a whole [6]. On the other hand, most authors have a common understanding that SPM principles must focus on processes to establish the balance of the TBL concept. This involves expanding the environmental agenda to integrate social and economic priorities [7], incorporating the concepts of life cycle thinking, including Project Life Cycle, Process Life Cycle, and Product Life Cycle [8], and also to spread responsibility to a wider spectrum of stakeholders of the project [9] to achieve project success [10].

The traditional definition of project management that considers the project life cycle as a temporary effort focused on a singular result without a longer life cycle orientation belittles the basic notion of sustainability, as it does not take future needs into account [11]. With the evolution of project management approaches from single project life cycles to a product life cycles, particularly considering complex contexts—with increments in scope and demanded proof-of-concepts—agile application approaches have become widespread. An interesting discussion regarding the correlation between agile management approaches and sustainability pillars based on the responsibility of guaranteeing present needs without compromising future resources has been brought to light [12]. Indeed, a collaborative arrangement focusing on stakeholder engagement (SE) has shifted attention towards a product life cycle perspective which integrates sustainability into project management [6,13].

Implementing SPM processes can influence SE [14]. Besides, addressing stakeholders’ demands to engage them in proactive participation in projects can also contribute to the implementation of sustainable practices in project management and consequently to achieving project success [15,16,17]. Furthermore, psychological factors, such as empowerment, provide a personal perception of job autonomy, meaning, and control, motivating stakeholders to share knowledge with their colleagues [18]. Hence, engendering reliable project environment helps the team achieve effective SE as well as fosters knowledge creation, sharing, and management in organizations [19]. Knowledge sharing has a critical role in supporting sustainable project management practices and project success [18].

The concept of project success has been evolving from the traditional and well-known triangle with the triple constraints of time, cost, and scope and quality to a contemporaneous approach considering other criteria related to project success, such as stakeholder participation and satisfaction, organization learning, customer benefit, and developing perspectives related to the organization and the overall wellbeing of society (global societal wellness) [13,20,21]. As well as sustainability practices, project SE and information and knowledge management (KM) are critical to achieve effective project management and achieve project success [11].

Since 2020, with the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated lockdowns, virtual environment solutions to support geographically distributed teams in projects have been widely implemented. The increasing in virtual or hybrid teams in projects must be considered as a no-way-back path [22,23]. Challenges such as the engagement of project stakeholders by project managers as well as the management of information and knowledge generated in the projects have become even more complex. Virtual information and communication tools and solutions can be a treat or an opportunity, depending on the infrastructure efficiency, the adequacy of use, and stakeholder adaptation to them. On the other hand, work solutions through virtual environments have been considered much more viable and sustainable ways of conducting project management, and the overall organizations’ work, as well [24]. In a virtual team work environment, the reduction of carbon footprints and the more reasonable consumption of resources are perceived as contributions to overall sustainable practices [22].

No major studies have been undertaken to date to precisely examine how more effectively SE and an appropriate KM can contribute to better implementation of sustainable practices in project management, particularly considering a virtual environment of work. Indeed, the academic literature has not yet properly addressed either mutual correlation of SE and KM or their influence on SPM. Proposing a structured model to quantitatively assess the influence of these constructs to SPM in a virtual work environment was the goal of this research.

Therefore, to understand the role of SE and KM on enhancing SPM, particularly considering the moderation of a virtual work environment, a five-point Likert scale questionnaire was applied to experienced Portuguese-speaking professionals in project management.

This paper is structured into five sections. Following the introduction, section two presents a comprehensive literature review of the main relationships explored in the model. Section three describes the materials and methods used in the study. Section four presents the results obtained from the structural equation modeling analysis. Finally, section five discusses the implications of the findings and provides recommendations for future research.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

The conducted systematic literature review (SLR) was crucial to endorse the hypotheses and the proposed model, explaining the correlation between stakeholder engagement and knowledge management and certifying their influence on sustainability in project management [11,25,26]. Additionally, the literature review was indispensable to identify and reference previously tested questionnaires to be applied in this study.

2.1. Stakeholder Engagement and Sustainability in Project Management

For the last decades there has been a continuous effort to incorporate sustainability effectively in all fields, including project management [27]. This involves considering the inclusion of life cycle-based thinking [8] and proposing major criteria to evaluate effectiveness [28], and then synthetizing dimensions of sustainability to obtain a better understanding of its impacts on project management [2] to evaluate project success [5,29,30]. However, moving toward sustainability in project management (SPM) implies deep changes in economic, environmental, and social strategic objectives of organizations [7]. Projects driven by sustainability principles can strengthen the ties between strategy and the required changes [8,31].

Nowadays, including sustainability in project management is a remarkable trend in project management [32]. In recent years, an increasing number of authors have been suggesting that concepts of sustainability must be integrated into project management and also to how projects are executed and managed to achieve success [25]. In most publications about SPM, the topic of stakeholder management is addressed as they are particularly connected [11,33,34].

Stakeholder participation was identified as one of the main dimensions found in SPM publications. The highlight is that stakeholder interests must be considered and respected as a key principle of sustainability [2,3,11].

Overcoming economic interests in order to prioritize and balance ecological and social issues is not an easy goal to reach. Indeed, the triple bottom line balance involves considering the basis of sustainability [7]. Therefore, underpinning values that support project manager and project team attitudes and behaviors, such as transparency, traceability, fairness, trust, and participation, are important principles in project’s stakeholder management [33]. Project’s stakeholder management practices may be different depending on project types. Likewise, sustainability principles visibility may vary from project to project, which rejects the generic project management approach [11,33].

Knowing, taking into account, and respecting the interests of stakeholders is mandatory for sustainability in project management. As a matter of fact, ISO 26000 reinforces the behavioral approach of sustainability, citing one of the fundamental bases of SPM— “proactive stakeholder engagement” [35]. Conversely, to achieve engagement, there is a need of partnership in defining the problems, designing possible solutions, collaborating on their implementation, and monitoring and evaluating the outcomes [27]. Then, dialogue, the search for consensus, and partnership between stakeholders is a key part of collaboration for the definition of problems, the projection of possible solutions, and the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of results [2].

The duration of collaboration strongly influences organizational learning, changing the focus from a project’s life cycle to a product’s life cycle [11,13]. As a matter of fact, stakeholder participation, collaboration, and engagement leads project management into adopting a more sustainable management approach that also considers social and ethical aspects [3,13,31]. Indeed, there is a notable tendency in project management publications to change the focus to a long-term and sustainable approach, which makes stakeholder engagement (SE) even more crucial to achieve success [25,36].

Besides the need of engagement, the list of project stakeholders is directly impacted by the introduction of sustainability practices into project management, i.e., it becomes more comprehensive, which implies much more responsibility for project managers [6]. SPM requires more than project management knowledge, skills, or capabilities; project managers must also be ethical, righteous, and fair on their management decisions [6]. On the other hand, culture may have a crucial effect on the relationship between SE and SPM. Firms should approach SPM holistically and integrate sustainability into all project stages. Project managers should engage stakeholders, analyze decisions through a sustainability lens, and create value for stakeholder groups to achieve successful outcomes [37].

The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are strategic for the engagement of stakeholders, leading them to seek even better results in projects [14,38]. Sustainability, as a construct itself, intrinsically takes stakeholders into consideration as an essential aspect of its understanding. Stakeholder relationships constitute a major aspect to achieve economic, social, and environmental balance, i.e., the three key pillars of the implementation of sustainability [7]. The increasing frequency of the publications that address these relationships reflects the influence of stakeholder theory in project management, particularly on implementing sustainability [37,38,39].

The literature supports the notion that sustainable project management is clearly positively influenced by SE and contributes to a project’s success and that of the overall organization [11,34]. In other words, it brings not only financial benefits, but also increases the social performance of an organization, improves corporate reputation, and contributes to innovation and technological production, leading to and increasing the competitive advantage [39]. However, the discussion on this influence still needs to be addressed, as recent research findings have not confirmed significant effects [37]. Therefore, and considering that this relationship is supported by the literature, the following hypothesis was formulated:

Hypothesis1.

Stakeholder engagement (SE) has a positive influence on sustainability in project management (SPM).

2.2. Knowledge Management and Sustainability in Project Management

In the 1990's, knowledge management (KM) arose as a widely discussed concept. Knowledge became to be considered as an essential asset for humankind to explore the future [40,41]. Therefore, the need to develop comprehensive understanding of knowledge processes and practices, such as creation/generation, identification, assimilation, transfer/distribution, and deployment, became critical [40,42]. An international society of knowledge professionals was created, and it was a challenging endeavor for them to develop KM as a new discipline [40].

Since the first decade of the 2000's, most of publications have referred to culture, communication, and information and communication technology (ICT), methods and organization structures as the main criteria to assess KM effectiveness [43,44]. Additionally, in the next decades, soft skills such as leadership, trust, influence, empathy, collaboration, stewardship, and adaptation have been included in the frameworks to enhance KM results [45,46,47,48]. Appendix A summarizes the distinguished authors and their contributions to the literature on KM.

KM is the strategic key to provide valuable insights for all decision-makers with the intellectual capital needed to become competent performers or a proactive opportunity creators in the 21st century [40]. Organizations must integrate learning with their current tasks not only to reach present goals, but mainly to develop and retain knowledge for their future needs [49]. Once again, the goal of project management as a long-term effort is not only to achieve success in terms of output but to add value with an outcome [21].

A new product is a package of benefits brought into existence by a project. Indeed, some authors refer to new product development as a knowledge-intensive process, involving cross-functional teams with different viewpoints [43]. The same then applies to projects, especially considering the established constraints. To face challenges and solve technical problems, new information is constantly incorporated into knowledge; therefore, learning is inherent to project teams’ jobs [49].

Knowledge is created in social interactions amongst individuals and organizations. Therefore, knowledge is dynamic and context-specific, depending on time and space. There is no knowledge without context; otherwise, it is just information. Hence, knowledge is relational and must consider personal beliefs [42,50]. Explicit knowledge includes all the formal and systematic information available and is easily transmitted, shared, or stored as data. A codification strategy for KM is used in this case [51]. In contrast, tacit knowledge is subjective, personal, hard to formalize, and difficult to communicate. It is imperative to recognize that tacit and explicit knowledge are complementary and essential to knowledge creation [42]. Personalization strategies focus on this person-to-person knowledge transfer [51].

A framework for examining the knowledge creation processes within multidisciplinary project teams based on knowledge management theory was first presented in the literature [42,49,51]. To overcome some of the shortcomings of the model, the social construction and communication elements were added to consider social perspectives of knowledge construction. Knowledge creation has been described as a boundary-crossing process of knowledge sharing, knowledge integration, and knowledge generation. Face-to-face sharing experience through socialization has been proven as a valuable mode of sharing knowledge [49].

In 2019, a particular definition of SPM that first considered the perceived relationship to KM through an organization’s learning in terms of stakeholder management, corporate policies and practices, resource management, and extended project life cycle was coined [11]. For the authors, there is a direct influence of the development of organizational capabilities and project success, particularly concerning SPM [11]. In other words, implementing SPM is a matter of proactive stakeholder involvement, maximizing economic, social, and environmental benefits to reach project objectives, and the perception of the extended life cycle of resources, processes, and effects to be considered in a continuous organizational learning path of project management [11].

Frequently, a lack of knowledge or experience among stakeholders related to sustainable project management practices is perceived by project managers. This knowledge gap is often reported as incompetence, contributing to make the path to reach excellence in terms of SPM longer [52]. Therefore, project managers’ communication and decision-making knowledge skills should be developed to improve results in terms of SPM [6].

Commonly, excellent project knowledge management brings important benefits to project success, such as, for example, cost savings. In addition, five other goals are stated as follows: increasing work efficiency (avoiding the redundancy of work); developing a continuous learning process (learning by repetition); continuous improvement (standardization); specialized resource allocation (optimal staffing); and the fostering of innovation (new ideas) [53]. To achieve excellence in KM, four major critical factors must be managed: culture and communication, ICT (information and communication technology), methods, and organization [44]. An effective commitment to KM in the context of project-oriented organizations is imperative to building and sustaining a competitive advantage [54].

Knowledge is a key resource to help ensure the sustainability of a project. By capturing, sharing, and using knowledge effectively, project managers can make better decisions that consider the long-term impacts of their actions [6]. Moreover, this can also help to ensure project viability in a long-term perspective and the capability to meet present needs without compromising the future demand for resources [11]. By sharing knowledge and information among team members, project managers contribute to engage the team, avoid work redundancy, reduce errors, and improve results to ensure that the project is successful in the long-term [45]. Indeed, effective KM can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of a project, which can also contribute to its sustainability [19]. Accordingly, the literature grounds the second hypothesis of this study:

Hypothesis2.

Knowledge management (KM) has a positive influence on sustainability in project management (SPM).

2.3. The Perspective of Virtual Teams

In virtual work environments and/or in geographically distributed project teams, communication channels must be managed so as to not prevent collaboration; this has no doubt become a huge challenge [55]. As previously quoted, the influence of a motivational aspect in SE as one of the challenges of working virtually should be evaluated [23]. Engaging project team members in effective knowledge-sharing processes to achieve their goals and innovate is not difficult. However, future knowledge creation processes must be considered as well. More than converting tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge, there should be processes to support further tacit knowledge generation as a legacy [42,49].

In a virtual project team environment, knowledge creation is the result of multiple different contexts depending on each team member. Explicit knowledge still counts on formal and relatively easy sharing and transmitting frameworks. On the other hand, tacit knowledge can represent a harder barrier, particularly with teams that have never worked in a collocated presential or hybrid job before [56]. Socialization is known as the process of creating and combining tacit knowledge through shared experiences. In virtual and geographically distributed environments, sharing experiences is not an easy accomplishment. In order to create knowledge at the organizational level, tacit and explicit knowledge must permanently interact and thus lead the organization to continuously innovate [57]. SE and KM can be directly impacted by virtual environment team conditions and consequently the overall project success is affected [58]. Articulating tacit knowledge to convert it into explicit knowledge is an externalization process that can eventually help, i.e., once sharing explicit knowledge is not a hard job [23,42]. The knowledge spiral process presented in 1995 by Nonaka and Takeuchi was adapted and is shown in Figure 1 to highlight the context of a virtual environment.

There is a Japanese concept called “Ba” that basically means a specific time–space nexus where information is interpreted and becomes knowledge [50]. It does not necessarily mean a physical space, but a concept that unifies an office space (this could be virtual) and mental space (with shared ideals). There are four types of “Ba”: originating, dialoguing, systemizing, and exercising. Originating and dialoguing are defined as individual and collective face-to-face interaction, respectively. Systemizing and exercising are defined by collective and individual virtual interactions, respectively. In a virtual project team environment, a systemizing “Ba” is established. Hence, this situation mainly offers the combination process of existing explicit knowledge, i.e., once explicit knowledge can be relatively easily transmitted to a large number of people [42]. In contrast, tacit knowledge is still considered a challenge.

In project-oriented organizations, there are commonly multi-cultural and geographically dispersed teams, sometimes speaking different languages. Project teams are temporally limited; as a consequence, the people involved and the lessons learned are dispersed as soon as the project ends. Besides, the people involved could change even during an ongoing project. The temporary and non-centralized characteristics of a project-oriented organization structure is a challenge for knowledge accumulation and management. The observed KM practices are weak and commonly unsystematic. Therefore, in a virtual environment, the struggle to encourage organizational learning and establish KM practices becomes even harder [43].

Authors define virtual teams (VTs) in different ways, including as being characterized by working from home, working on the road, or working in groups beyond boundaries across the internet. In general, most of them refer to a universal and common understanding, i.e., VTs involve distance and discontinuities in basic project conditions such as geography, time zones, organization structure, national culture, work practices, and technology. Thus, attention must be paid to the challenges people face in this environment, such as communication, resolving conflicts, and maintaining social interactions over time, space, or organizational units [55]. Hence, in VT projects, a consistent group of project management practices helps resolve both uncertainties and ambiguities, aiming to compensate for the discontinuities [24].

In recent decades, the continuous evolution and the increasing use and acceptance of ICT has clearly influenced organizations to adopt VT environments. Then, to measure knowledge sharing processes in VTs, in 2020, a model based on seven factors was proposed—culture, motivation, language, conflict, ICT, trust, and leadership [47]. Knowledge sharing in VTs has proven to be positively influenced by motivation, ICT, trust, and leadership, and, on the other hand, negatively impacted by culture and conflicts, while language has no correlation [47].

In VTs, the motivational component can be crucial given the importance of maintaining the drive and the persistence to continue to work. The influence of motivational aspects to SE as one of the barriers of working virtually should be evaluated, particularly regarding the team’s synergy and direction [23]. Indeed, even extremely experienced VTs can be unable to rapidly solve emergent issues or situations because of the presented constraints [41].

Hence, in light of the aforementioned arguments and to better understand the model proposed in this study, considering virtual team environments, two additional hypotheses were formulated and are as follows:

Hypothesis3.

Virtual teams (VT) have a negative moderation effect on the influence of stakeholder engagement (SE) on sustainability in project management (SPM) (stated by Hypothesis 1).

Hypothesis4.

Virtual teams (VT) have a negative moderation effect on the influence of knowledge management (KM) on sustainability in project management (SPM) (stated by Hypothesis 2).

2.4. The Correlation of Stakeholder Engagement and Knowledge Management in Projects

As previously stated, projects are commonly characterized by discontinuous efforts with short-term teams. KM in a temporary organization is a decisive competitive factor, as it is the only way to maintain an organization’s knowledge assets. For instance, the temporality and uniqueness of a project are seen as major obstacles for organizational learning [44]. Consequently, effort to develop SE has become a key aspect in terms of achieving this goal [59].

The literature review identified two key strategies for managing knowledge in projects: the codification strategy, which involves capturing and storing knowledge in artifacts and databases, and the personalization strategy, which focuses on knowledge developed through personal interactions and shared among individuals. The research found that physical documents and interactions with colleagues were considered the most crucial sources of knowledge within projects. In order to transform a project organization into a learning organization and effectively leverage lessons learned from one project to the next, a systematic approach to managing knowledge within projects is necessary [43]. In addition, knowledge distribution and sharing constitute the main path to engage and include stakeholders as well as democratize information in a project [20].

A temporary team effort approach toward projects can lead to a myopic vision, belittling the management of stakeholders’ interests in order to meet project management goals [60]. To deal with this limitation, recently, project success assessment frameworks have come to consider longer-term approaches [11]. Other criteria began to be considered, such as newly acquired skills, the effective use of the final product of the project by users, customer satisfaction, commercial success translating to new opportunities for the company, stakeholder satisfaction, impact on the project team, safety, effectiveness, and conflict reduction [60]. To this end, SE as well as KM and SPM become crucial aspects of project management to achieve success [61].

In 2020, the importance of the stakeholder pressure and KM processes to seek sustainable achievements, including in project management, was first considered in the literature. The model presented the positive impact of SE on KM and consequently the sustainable aspects in project management [61]. On the other hand, in 2022, research showed the importance of knowledge sharing on cultivating a sense of meaning amongst stakeholders. Engaging stakeholders through knowledge sharing is a phenomenon of belonging that is crucial for an organization’s strategy [18]. The SLR shows that an academic research gap exists, as the mutual correlation between SE and KM has still not been properly addressed.

Project stakeholders must recognize that a commitment to KM does not happen immediately; therefore, communicating the strategic goals of these practices and engaging them is imperative for success. Hence, once communities of practice (CoPs) are established, knowledge sharing and transfer can be facilitated through, for example, webinars or discussion sessions [62]. As substantiated by the literature review, there is an important correlation between frameworks related to KM and the SE to the project [63]. Drawing on the preceding points and considering the potential effect of a correlation to the model, this study considered one final hypothesis as follows:

Hypothesis5.

Stakeholder engagement (SE) and knowledge management (KM) have a mutually positive correlation.

3. Materials and Methods

The research design combined a systematic literature review (SLR) and survey-based research (SBR) to assess the mutual relationship of stakeholder engagement (SE) and knowledge management (KM) and their impact on sustainability in project management (SPM), specifically in a virtual setting.

The research methodology consisted of the following steps: a SLR was first conducted to establish a conceptual model, formulate hypotheses, and select appropriate, tested questionnaires; the survey, which included the selected questionnaires as provided in Appendix B, was administered to collect data for the study; using structural equation modeling (SEM), a quantitative data analysis was performed to test the hypotheses; the variables and relationships were identified based on the conceptual model and a hypothetical model was proposed; and, finally, the validity of the model was determined using the collected data.

SEM comprises two stages: the development of a measurement model and a structural model. The measurement model demonstrates how the selected variables demonstrate the constructs, while the structural model illustrates the causal or associative links between the constructs.

3.1. Data Collection and Sample Caracterictics

The survey utilized a five-point Likert scale rating system for participants to evaluate constructs in relation to their most recent virtual or in-person project team experience. Demographic and professional information was also collected to classify respondents based on their background and experience with VT. The survey targeted individuals with project management experience and a minimum of 200 responses were needed for the study’s objectives. Therefore, based on an estimated response rate of 25 percent, which is consistent with the average response rate in similar studies [64], and using the sample size formula (sample size = [(minimum sample size required × 100) ÷ Average percentage response rate expected]), the survey link was intended to be sent to 8000 professionals who are Portuguese speakers (84.5 percent of whom are Brazilian, 14 percent are Brazilian with a second nationality, and 0.5 percent are foreign [65]).

The investigation used a web-based form composed of validated questionnaires from reputable academic sources identified through a literature review and listed in Appendix B. The questionnaire for assessing SPM was selected based on the TBL dimensions [26], while the questionnaire for assessing KM was based on the most of frameworks uses the same division in Organization and Methodology, ICT, and Human Aspects [46]. For the first-order SE construct, two references were used to create the questionnaire items [64,66], and, finally, for VT moderation, questionnaires were selected based on the key characteristics of virtual team development [23,47].

3.2. Structural Equation Modeling

Structural equation modeling (SEM) is defined as a family of statistical models that help to explain the relationships between multiple variables. SEM is a combination of factorial analysis and multiple regression analysis techniques, which differs from other multivariate techniques in that SEM constitutes the simultaneous examination of several dependency relationships. In order to evaluate the relationships between constructs, structural models were adjusted using the PLS (partial least squares) approach, which is considered more efficient for relatively small sample sizes and complex models [67]. SEM PLS is suitable for non-normally distributed samples such as those used in this study and provides R2 values and significance of relationships between constructs to evaluate model performance [68].

The quality and validity of first- and/or second-order constructs were examined by assessing their dimensionality, reliability, and convergent validity. To determine convergent validity, the applied criterion states that when the average variance extracted (AVE) is greater than 50% or 40% in exploratory research, it suggests convergent validity [69,70,71,72]. Reliability was determined by using Cronbach’s alpha (CA) and composite reliability (CC) indicators, which should be greater than 0.70 or 0.60 in exploratory research [73] to indicate construct reliability. The dimensionality of the constructs was evaluated through the parallel straight criteria [74] and the acceleration factor [75], which returns the number of construct dimensions. The sample’s suitability for factor analysis was assessed by the KMO indicator, which measures the proportion of data variance that can be considered common to all variables. A KMO value of 0.50 or greater indicates that the sample is appropriate for factor analysis.

The process of modeling structural equations involves the development of a measurement model (outer model) and a structural model (inner model). The measurement model represents the theory that describes how the measured variables come together to represent the constructs, while the structural model defines the causal or associative relationships between constructs. Items with factor loadings lower than 0.50 in the measurement model must be disposed of [76]; this is because once they do not have a relevant contribution to the latent variable composition, they impair the process of reaching basic assumptions for ascertaining the validity and quality of indicators created to represent the concept of interest.

3.3. Research Model and Hypothesis

This study aimed to quantitatively evaluate the correlations between SE and KM and their influence on SPM, particularly considering the moderation of a virtual environment. Therefore, the first hypothesis (H1) was that SE has a positive influence on SPM. The second hypothesis (H2) was that KM has a positive influence on SPM. Hypotheses H3 and H4 are, respectively, that virtual team (VT)-based environments have a negative moderating effect on the relationships proposed in hypotheses H1 and H2. The fifth and final hypothesis (H5) was that SE and KM have a positive correlation. The SLR supports the proposed model and the respective hypotheses, as shown in Table 1 and Figure 2 and Figure 3. Both null and alternative hypotheses were formulated for each hypothesis in the study to validate or reject it (Table 1).

4. Results

The survey revealed that the majority of participants (54.29%) had extensive experience in project management, with over 15 years under their belt. Additionally, most respondents (53.81%) had at least moderate experience, with 1–5 years of experience working on projects within a virtual team setting. Based on the descriptive analysis of the survey results, it can be inferred that participants generally had positive or neutral views towards the constructs of stakeholder engagement (SE), sustainability in project management (SPM), and virtual teams (VTs), as most of the scores for the first-order items of these constructs were higher than three on the Likert scale (midpoint), which indicates agreement or neutrality (in items 6.2.4 and 6.2.11 of SPM, Table A3, Appendix B). However, this was not the case for all of the items of the KM construct, as the analysis revealed that some participants disagreed with certain items (8.1.1.5, 8.1.3.4, 8.1.4.2, 8.1.4.7, and 8.1.4.8, Table A5, Appendix B).

In the measurement model (outer model), it was not necessary to remove any item once all of them presented factorial loads greater than 0.50, as illustrated in Table A6, Appendix C.

Table 2 displays the results of the analysis of the model’s constructs in terms of convergent validity, construct reliability, discriminant validity, and dimensionality. The key findings from the analysis include the following:

* All constructs demonstrated convergent validity (AVE > 0.40);

* All constructs showed evidence of discriminant validity as the maximum shared variance (M.S.V.) was less than the respective AVE;

* All constructs had reliability indexes (C.A. and/or C.R.) higher than 0.60, indicating that they are reliable;

* The acceleration factor criterion revealed that all constructs were one-dimensional.

Table 3 and Figure 4 present the structural model (inner model) developed for this study, which quantifies the relationships between the constructs. It is important to note that the goodness-of-fit (Gof) for the model was 46.82%. In light of the rejection or acceptance of the null hypotheses, the results of the study indicate the following:

* KM had a significant and positive influence of on SPM (p-value < 0.001, ß = 0.27 [0.12; 0.45]), meaning that higher KM leads to higher SPM;

* Similarly, SE had a significant and positive influence on SPM (p-value < 0.001, ß = 0.40 [0.25; 0.54]), meaning that higher SE leads to higher SPM;

* However, VT had no significant moderation effect on the relationship between KM and SPM (p-value = 0.808) and the relationship between SE and SPM (p-value = 0.333);

* In addition, SE and KM proved to have a significant high and positive correlation of 0.6474 (p-value < 0.001, r = 0.6474);

* KM, SE, and their individual interactions with VT were able to explain 38.41% of the variability of SPM.

The findings of the study indicated that null hypotheses for H1, H2, and H5 were rejected, while hypotheses H3 and H4 were not. Specifically, the positive influence of KM and SE on SPM as well as the high positive correlation between these constructs were established. However, VT was not found to have a detrimental moderating effect on the relationships between KM and SPM and SE and SPM as stated in hypotheses H3 and H4 (Table 4).

5. Discussion

The COVID-19 pandemic represents a fold in the history of humankind, shortening the path to virtual solutions for practically everything. Particularly in the project management field, virtual team solutions were widely adopted. Consequently, from 2020, the annual average number of publications related to virtual teams in projects skyrocketed. Notwithstanding this reality, the moderating effects of virtual teams (VT) on project management practices still does not reflect the pace of their growing presence in projects [5,22,23,77].

Moreover, the literature review suggests that there is significant interest in incorporating sustainable practices in project management [12,15,29,78,79]. Stakeholder engagement and knowledge management clearly contribute to an extended project life cycle perception of resources, processes, and effects to be considered in a continuous organizational learning path of sustainable practices in project management [11,25]. Regardless of this, the influence of stakeholder engagement (SE) and knowledge management (KM) sustainability in project management (SPM) has not yet been properly addressed in a quantitative manner.

In recent publications on project management, authors have called attention to the importance of having a long life-cycle perception of value. Hence, there is a perceived migration from project management to product management, considering iterated outcomes to be tested instead of a singular project result. In this path, once again, the study confirmed the importance of assessing continuous learning, participant management, and engagement and sustainable practices in organizations [12].

The study proposed five hypotheses, which were supported by the literature review. However, not all of them were confirmed by the SEM analysis. The study found that both SE and KM have a positive impact on promoting sustainable practices in project management. Additionally, the effect of SE is more prominent, as indicated by the high beta coefficient of SE (ß = 0.40). This aligns with existing research, which suggests that there are more studies exploring the influence or SE on sustainable project management than studies considering the influence of KM on sustainable project management. The study’s results also confirmed the positive relationship between SE and KM on sustainable project management practices, as reflected by the R-squared value of 38.41%. This suggests that the model explains a significant portion of the variation in sustainable project management practices resulting from SE and KM [18,25,33].

The results of the study also support the existence of a significant positive correlation between SE and KM, as shown by a high correlation coefficient of 0.6474. This means that these two constructs not only individually contribute to SPM, but also reinforce each other in a positive way, thus increasing their overall impact. This finding confirms the strong positive relationship between SE and KM in project management that has been previously reported in literature [63] and should be taken into account in future research on project success.

6. Conclusions

This study aimed to quantitatively evaluate five initial hypotheses, grounded in a literature review, regarding the relationship between the constructs of SE, KM, SPM, and the moderating effect of VT environments. The outcomes of the testing of these five initial hypotheses are displayed in Table 5.

Hence, in summary, the study found the following:

* Both SE and KM have a positive influence on sustainable project management practices;

* The effect of SE was found to be more pronounced than that of KM;

* There is a bidirectional relationship between SE and KM reinforcing each other and thus increasing their overall influence;

* The relationship between SE, KM, and SPM is not influenced by the virtual environment in which the project is taking place.

6.1. Theoretical and Practical Implications

As a practical implication of this study, organizations can improve their sustainable project management (SPM) practices by focusing on the integration of SE and KM. By incorporating SE and KM into their SPM processes, organizations can achieve better performance and outcomes in terms of sustainability. The positive correlation between SE and KM suggests that organizations should invest in both SE and KM initiatives to achieve the best results in terms of sustainability. Complementarily, as a theoretical implication, future studies on project success assessment can consider this mutual correlation effect in their frameworks.

Effective stakeholder engagement can be achieved by improving the human and organizational aspects of knowledge management, such as culture, leadership, teamwork, trust, collaboration, learning, rewards and incentives, training, and performance measurement. In companies where there is engagement, knowledge management happens more smoothly with the formation of communities of practice, an effective way of generating and sharing knowledge. These communities create a sense of belonging and enable employees to learn from each other, leading to increased innovation and productivity. By fostering a culture that values knowledge and encourages collaboration, organizations can strengthen their knowledge management practices and ultimately achieve greater success.

Additionally, the study’s results indicated that SE is more important than KM regarding SPM practices; therefore, organizations may want to focus on SE in particular when implementing sustainable practices. The findings of this study can also be used to inform the development of training programs and tools to help organizations integrate SE and KM into their SPM processes.

In contrast, the results indicated that the hypothesis that VT environments act as negative moderators on the relationship between SE and KM and SPM was not supported by the data. This suggests that the relationship between SE and KM and SPM is not influenced by virtual environments in which projects take place. One possible managerial implication of this is that organizations can improve their SPM practices by focusing on the integration of SE and KM regardless of whether the project is being conducted in a virtual or traditional environment. This finding highlights the importance of focusing on internal factors (SE and KM) rather than external factors (environment) in order to achieve SPM.

The research findings have practical implications for organizations in various industries, such as project management, construction and engineering, IT and software development, manufacturing, and the government and public sector. These organizations can use the findings of this study to improve SPM practices by focusing on the integration of SE and KM, regardless of whether a given project is being conducted in a virtual or traditional environment.

Following the events of 2020, an increasing number of companies have embraced remote work environments not only as a temporary solution to the pandemic, but as a permanent option for their employees. Hybrid teams have emerged as a conclusive resolution to integrating geographically dispersed project teams. Virtual work has become ubiquitous and further studies, such as this one, should be conducted to evaluate the efficacy of virtual teams and their impact on project outcomes. This research provides valuable managerial implications and constitutes a contribution to the field of project management, as it demonstrates that the model was not significantly influenced by the team environment.

6.2. Limitations and Future Research

This study has a limitation in that the survey questionnaire was only applied in Portuguese; thus, the sample was composed of only Portuguese speakers. This means that the results of this study may not be generalizable to speakers of other languages. Additionally, while 18.52% of the respondents referred to international projects geographically distributed outside of Brazil, this still represents a scope limitation of the study. Therefore, it is important to consider this limitation in future research and to conduct studies in other languages and/or with samples from other countries to confirm the findings of this study.

One important aspect not accounted for in this model is the potential bidirectional relationship between SPM and SE. Given that sustainability embodies a crucial principle for life and humanity, it is suggested that future research should explore how sustainable project management practices may impact stakeholder engagement. This would provide insights into how project management can be designed to promote sustainability while simultaneously increasing stakeholder participation and involvement.

Future research can address several areas, such as replicating the study with a more global sample, including other languages and cultures. Additionally, the study could be expanded to include other variables and to examine their relationships with SPM. Another possible direction is to conduct a study segmented by sectors or fields in order to discern the relationship between SE, KM, and SPM in different contexts. Finally, as the concept of project success evolves, a more complex model could be proposed to understand the link between SE, KM, SPM, and overall project success as a development of the findings presented in this study [4].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.B.B.; Methodology, M.S.C.; Validation, G.B.B.; Formal analysis, G.B.B.; Investigation, G.B.B.; Data curation, G.B.B.; Writing—original draft, G.B.B.; Writing—review & editing, E.L.Q.; Supervision, M.S.C.; Project administration, E.L.Q. and M.S.C.; Funding acquisition, E.L.Q. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are unavailable due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Acknowledgments

I would like to extend my appreciation to my husband Ricardo Bernat and my daughters Susana and Sophia Blak Bernat for their unwavering support and understanding throughout my research process. Their love and encouragement were invaluable in completing this project.

Appendix A

sustainability-15-04896-t0A1_Table A1 Table A1 Evolution of knowledge management models. Year Authors Contribution Framework/Model (Constructs, Variables, and Parameters) 1995 and 2000 Nonaka et al. [50,57] Knowledge is dynamic and context-specific and depends on time and space. Knowledge is relational and must consider personal beliefs. Nonaka Spiral: socialization, externalization, combination, internalization Socialization is known as the process of creating tacit knowledge through shared experiences. The Japanese concept called “Ba” means a specific time–space nexus, serving as a concept that unifies an office space (which could be virtual) and mental space (with shared ideals). - socialization - externalization - combination - internalization 1997 Shariq [40] There is a need to develop a comprehensive understanding of knowledge processes and practices, such as creation/generation, identification, assimilation, transfer/distribution, and deployment. - creation/generation - identification - assimilation - transfer/distribution - deployment 2003 Fong [51] This study provided a framework for examining the knowledge creation processes based on Nonaka and Takeuchi’s theory, adding the social construction and communication elements -product development as a knowledge-intensive process, involving cross-functional teams with different viewpoints -learning is inherent to project teams’ jobs -knowledge sharing, knowledge integration, and knowledge generation - knowledge sharing - knowledge integration - knowledge generation 2003 Kasvi et al. [43] Proposed the codification strategy—codifying and storing knowledge it in artefacts and databases (paper documents); and the personalization strategy—knowledge developed by persons and shared by personal interaction (interaction with colleagues). - codification - personalization 2009 Hanisch et al. [44] Culture and communication, ICT (information and communication technology), methods, and organization - culture and communication, - ICT (information and communication technology) - methods - organization 2010 Ajmal et al. [54] Familiarity with KM; coordination among employees and departments; incentive to develop knowledge efforts; authority to perform knowledge-related activities; system for handling knowledge; and cultural support. 2011 Lindner & Wald [80] Organizational, structural, and process-related factors (based on Hanisch et al.).-“Organizational and Process” (“Organization PK”, “Process PK”, “Systematic PK controlling processes”, “The maturity of the PM-methodology” and “The institutionalization of multi-PM/KM”)-“ICT-systems” (“ICT support”, “The use of systems to support communication” and “The use of systems to support storage”).-“Cultural and Leadership”(“Knowledge culture”, “Management commitment”, “Mistake tolerance”, “Project culture” and “Informal networks”). - Organizational and process-related (controlling ofKM activities, institutionalization multi-PM/KM, maturity PM methodology, organization PK, process PK) - ICT systems (systems communication, systems storage, ICT-support) - Cultural and leadership-based (informal networks, mistake tolerance, project culture, management commitment)- PMK Effectiveness 2012 and 2014 Reich et al. [19,81] Knowledge stock, enabling environmental (combination of technological aspects—IT infrastructure for communication—and social aspects—related to organization resources, cultural aspects, and the team climate of a project) and knowledge practices - Knowledge management (Enabling Environment, Knowledge Practices, Knowledge Stock) - Project-based knowledge - Knowledge alignment project - Management performance - Project performance 2015 Oluikpe [45] Social construction: the informal connections and relationships directly influence the utilization and transfer of tacit knowledge.Organization results are mainly driven by explicit knowledge once it can be easily actioned and measured - Interpretation - Assimilation - Reproduction - Codification 2018 Gunasekera and Chong [46] - Organizational and process-based (controlling of KM activities, institutionalization multi-PM/KM, maturity PM methodology, organization PK, process PK) - ICT systems (systems communication, systems storage, ICT-support) - Cultural and leadership-based (informal networks, mistake tolerance, project culture, management commitment) - PMK effectiveness Culture, transformational leadership, organizational structure, IT support, T-shaped skills, training, teamwork, performance measurement, benchmarking, 2020 Davidavi?cien? et al. [47] To measure knowledge sharing processes in virtual teams, Davidavi?cien?e et al. proposed a model based on seven factors—culture, motivation, language, conflict, ICT, trust, and leadership Culture, motivation, leadership, trust, ICT, language, and conflict

Appendix B

sustainability-15-04896-t0A2_Table A2 Table A2 Virtual teams: legend and questionnaires—adapted from [23,47]. Construct Item Legend Question Virtual Teams (VT) Cultural Intelligence (CI) VT-CI1 5.1.1 I know the legal and economic systems of other cultures. VT-CI2 5.1.2 I know the rules (e.g., vocabulary, grammar) of other languages. VT-CI3 5.1.3 I know the cultural values and religious beliefs of other cultures. VT-CI4 5.1.4 I know the rules for expressing nonverbal behaviors in other cultures. VT-CI 5 5.1.5 I am conscious of the cultural background I use when interacting with people with different cultural backgrounds. VT-CI6 5.1.6 I adjust my cultural knowledge as I interact with people from a culture that is unfamiliar to me. VT-CI7 5.1.7 I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I apply to cross-cultural interactions. VT-CI8 5.1.8 I check the accuracy of my cultural knowledge as I interact with people from different cultures. VT-CI9 5.1.9 I enjoy interacting with people from different cultures. VT-CI10 5.1.10 I am confident that I can socialize with locals in a culture that is unfamiliar to me. VT-CI11 5.1.11 I am sure I can deal with the stresses of adjusting to a culture that is new to me. VT-CI12 5.1.12 I enjoy living in cultures that are unfamiliar to me. VT-CI13 5.1.13 I am confident that I can get accustomed to the shopping conditions in a different culture. VT-CI14 5.1.14 I change my verbal behavior (e.g., accent, tone) when a cross-cultural interaction requires it. VT-CI15 5.1.15 I use pause and silence differently to suit different cross-cultural situations. VT-CI16 5.1.16 I vary the rate of my speaking when a cross-cultural situation requires it. VT-CI17 5.1.17 I change my nonverbal behavior when a cross-cultural situation requires it. VT-CI18 5.1.18 I alter my facial expressions when a cross-cultural situation requires it. Communication Accommodation (CA) VT-CA1 5.2.1 I try to match the communication style of other members in the GVT. VT-CA2 5.2.2 I show interest when speaking to others in the GVT. VT-CA3 5.2.3 I can easily adjust when communicating to others in the GVT. VT-CA4 5.2.4 I respond constructively when communicating with others in the GVT. VT-CA5 5.2.5 I am open-minded in evaluating the feedback given to me by other members of the GVT. VT-CA6 5.2.6 I adjust my communication styles with others in the GVT. VT-CA7 5.2.7 I show my willingness to listen when communicating with others in the GVT. Team Sinergy (TS) VT-TS1 5.3.1 He/she openly shares information about the task. VT-TS2 5.3.2 He/she demonstrates flexibility with others. VT-TS3 5.3.3 He/she helps actively in resolving conflicts in the team. VT-TS4 5.3.4 He/she is good in communicating when making decisions. VT-TS5 5.3.5 He/she contributes significantly to the team. VT-TS6 5.3.6 He/she promotes friendly team climate. VT-TS7 5.3.7 He/she is effective in coordinating group efforts. VT-TS8 5.3.8 He/she is cooperative with other team members. VT-TS9 5.3.9 He/she helps team members beyond what is required. Team Direction (TD) VT-TD1 5.4.1 He/she sets goals effectively. VT-TD2 5.4.2 He/she continually improves. VT-TD3 5.4.3 He/she is effective in problem-solving. VT-TD4 5.4.4 He/she sets high quality standards. VT-TD5 5.4.5 He/she focuses on common team goals. VT-TD6 5.4.6 He/she is enthusiasm for team direction and performance. Multi-Regional Virtual Team (MR) VT-MR1 5.5.1 I strengthen ties between other teammates and myself VT-MR2 5.5.2 It is challenging to deal with different languages in virtual team (in your organization) VT-MR3 5.5.3 It is challenging to deal with different cultures in virtual team (in your organization) VT-MR4 5.5.4 It is challenging to deal with different time zones in virtual team collaborations (in your organization) VT-MR5 5.5.5 It is challenging to use virtual technologies in virtual team collaborations (in your organization) VT-MR6 5.5.6 It is challenging to establish and respect standards/rules for meetings and team collaboration. Environment and Resources (ER) VT-ER1 5.6.1 There was a reduction in the administrative expenses of the project (natural resources such as energy, water, others). VT-ER2 5.6.2 There was an increase in productivity considering that there was no displacement. VT-ER3 5.6.3 There was a reduction in environmental impacts considering that there was no displacement. VT-ER4 5.6.4 There was a reduction in environmental impacts considering that there was no use of an administrative office. VT-ER5 5.6.5 There was increased productivity due to remote work VT-ER6 5.6.6 There was increased productivity due to the satisfaction and well-being of the team

sustainability-15-04896-t0A3_Table A3 Table A3 Sustainability in project management: legend and questionnaires—adapted from [26]. Construct Item Legend Question Sustainability in Project Management (SPM) Economic (EC) (The project considers relevant/applied… Is it Important?) SPM-EC1 6.1.1 Financial performance (return on investments, solvency, profitability, and liquidity) SPM-EC2 6.1.2 Financial benefits of good practices (social, environmental, health and safety, job creation, education, and training) SPM-EC3 6.1.3 Business ethics (fair trade, relationship with competition and anti-crime policies, codes of conduct, bribery and corruption, technical and legal requirements, tax payments) SPM-EC4 6.1.4 Cost management (resources) SPM-EC5 6.1.5 Management of the company’s relationship with customers (marketing and brand management, market share, management opportunities, risk management, and pricing) SPM-EC6 6.1.6 Participation and involvement of stakeholders (corporate governance) SPM-EC7 6.1.7 Innovation management (research and development, consumption patterns, production, productivity, and flexibility) SPM-EC8 6.1.8 Economic performance (profit sharing, GDP) SPM-EC9 6.1.9 Culture of the organization and its management (heritage) SPM-EC10 6.1.10 Economics and environmental accounting SPM-EC11 6.1.11 Management of intangibles SPM-EC12 6.1.12 Internationalization Environment (EN) (The project considers relevant / applied… Is it Important?) SPM-EN1 6.2.1 Natural resources (reduction of resource use, material input and output minimization, reduction of waste production and soil contamination, impact reduction) SPM-EN2 6.2.2 Energy (generation, use, distribution, and transmission of energy, global warming) SPM-EN3 6.2.3 Water (water quality, reduction of liquid waste, risks) SPM-EN4 6.2.4 Biodiversity (air, protection of oceans, lakes, coasts, forests) SPM-EN5 6.2.5 Management systems of environmental policies (environmental obligations, environmental adaptation, environmental infractions) SPM-EN6 6.2.6 Management of impacts on the environment and the life cycle of products and services (analysis of product disassembly, post-sale tracking, reverse logistics) SPM-EN7 6.2.7 Eco-efficiency (business opportunities for products and services, environmental footprint) SPM-EN8 6.2.8 Environmental justice and responsibility (intergenerational equity, compromise with the improvement of environmental quality) SPM-EN9 6.2.9 Environmental education and training SPM-EN10 6.2.10 High-risk projects, climate strategy and governance SPM-EN11 6.2.11 Environmental reports Social (SO) (The project considers relevant / applied… Is it Important?) SPM-O1 6.3.1 Labor practices (health, safety and working conditions, training and education) SPM-O2 6.3.2 Labor practices (relations with employees, employment, diversity, opportunity, remuneration, benefits and career opportunities) SPM-O3 6.3.3 Relationships with the local community (impacts, child labor, human rights, non-discrimination, indigenous rights, forced and compulsory labor) SPM-O4 6.3.4 Engagement of stakeholders SPM-O5 6.3.5 Financing and construction of social action (philanthropy and corporate citizenship, governmental social projects, leadership and social influence) SPM-O6 6.3.6 Society (competition and pricing policies, anti-bribery and anti-corruption practices and suborn) SPM-O7 6.3.7 Concepts of social justice SPM-O8 6.3.8 Relationships with suppliers and contractors (selection, evaluation, partnership) SPM-O9 6.3.9 Society (contribution to social campaigns) SPM-O10 6.3.10 Products and services (responsibility, consumer health and safety, marketing, respect and privacy) SPM-O11 6.3.11 Human rights (freedom of association and collective bargaining and relationship with trade unions) SPM-O12 6.3.12 Human rights (strategy and management, disciplinary procedures) SPM-O13 6.3.13 Social Reports

sustainability-15-04896-t0A4_Table A4 Table A4 Stakeholder engagement: legend and questionnaires—adapted from [64,66]. Construct Legend Question Stakeholder Engagement (SE) SE1 7.1 Project Management team explained project objectives and implications to all stakeholders SE2 7.2 Project management team carefully considered stakeholders opinioms and views SE3 7.3 Project Management team actively built a good relationship with stakeholders SE4 7.4 Project Management team operated an effective communication system for the project SE5 7.5 Project Management team implemented a governance system for the project SE6 7.6 Stakeholder interests were carefully considered throughout the project lifecycle SE7 7.7 Key stakeholders were empowered to pacrticipate in the decision-making process SE8 7.8 Involving relevant project stakeholders at the inception stage and whenever necessary to refine project mission SE9 7.9 Formulating appropriate strategies to manage/engage different stakeholders SE10 7.10 Considering corporate social responsibilities (paying attention to economic, legal, environmental, and ethical issues)

sustainability-15-04896-t0A5_Table A5 Table A5 Knowledge management: legend and questionnaires—adapted from [46]. Construct Item Subitem Legend Question Knowledge Management (KM) Organization / Methodology (OM) Centralization (CE) Our company members… KM-OM-CE1 8.1.1.1 can take actions without a superior KM-OM-CE2 8.1.1.2 are encouraged to make their own decisions KM-OM-CE3 8.1.1.3 do not need to refer to someone else KM-OM-CE4 8.1.1.4 do not need to ask their supervisors before taking actions KM-OM-CE5 8.1.1.5 can make decisions without approval Formalisation (FO) In our company... KM-OM-FO1 8.1.2.1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal procedures KM-OM-FO2 8.1.2.2 contacts with organisational members are made on a formal or planned basis KM-OM-FO3 8.1.2.3 rules and procedures are typically written Trainning (TR) Our organisation... KM-OM-TR1 8.1.3.1 places people at the right job position KM-OM-TR2 8.1.3.2 provides training for sharing of knowledge KM-OM-TR3 8.1.3.3 provides continuous training programme within the organisation KM-OM-TR4 8.1.3.4 provides continuous training programme outside the organisation KM-OM-TR5 8.1.3.5 facilitates us to use knowledge management systems KM-OM-TR6 8.1.3.6 is able to retain outstanding staff Performance measurement (PM) Our company employs a procedure to measure... KM-OM-PM1 8.1.4.1 distribution of knowledge within the organisation KM-OM-PM2 8.1.4.2 amount of reports generated on knowledge activity by employees KM-OM-PM3 8.1.4.3 number of relationships established due to knowledge systems and networking KM-OM-PM4 8.1.4.4 number of employees accepting knowledge activity as part of their daily work KM-OM-PM5 8.1.4.5 changes of job performance due to proper management of knowledge in place KM-OM-PM6 8.1.4.6 performance of target activities to previously set baseline KM-OM-PM7 8.1.4.7 job performance data and information KM-OM-PM8 8.1.4.8 actual performance improvement and reward/recognition Benchmarking (BM) Our company has processes for... KM-OM-BM1 8.1.5.1 generating new knowledge from existing knowledge KM-OM-BM2 8.1.5.2 using feedback from past experience to improve future projects KM-OM-BM3 8.1.5.3 exchanging knowledge with external partners KM-OM-BM4 8.1.5.4 acquiring knowledge about new products and services within our industry KM-OM-BM5 8.1.5.5 acquiring knowledge about competitors within our industry KM-OM-BM6 8.1.5.6 benchmarking performance amongst employees and departments KM-OM-BM7 8.1.5.7 identifying and upgrading best practices KM-OM-BM8 8.1.5.8 encouraging employees to benchmark best practices of other organisations ICT Systems (ICT) Our company provides IT support for … KM-ICT1 8.2.1 collaborative works regardless of time and place KM-ICT2 8.2.2 communication amongst organisational members KM-ICT3 8.2.3 searching for and accessing necessary information KM-ICT4 8.2.4 simulation and prediction KM-ICT5 8.2.5 systematic storing of data and information Human Aspects (HA) Culture: Trust (CT) Our company members… KM-HA-CT1 8.3.1.1 are generally trustworthy KM-HA-CT2 8.3.1.2 have reciprocal faith in the intention and behaviours of other members KM-HA-CT3 8.3.1.3 have reciprocal faith in the behaviours of others to work towards organisational goal KM-HA-CT4 8.3.1.4 have reciprocal faith in the behaviours of others to work towards organisational goal KM-HA-CT5 8.3.1.5 have reciprocal faith in the decision of others towards organisational interest than individual interest KM-HA-CT6 8.3.1.6 have relationship based on reciprocal faith Culture: Collaboration (CC) Our organisation members… KM-HA-CC1 8.3.2.1 Our organisation members are satisfied with the degree of collaboration KM-HA-CC2 8.3.2.2 Our organisation members are supportive of each other KM-HA-CC3 8.3.2.3 Our organisation members are helpful KM-HA-CC4 8.3.2.4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organisational units within our organisation KM-HA-CC5 8.3.2.5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure Culture: Learning (CL) Our company… KM-HA-CL1 8.3.3.1 provides various formal training programmes related to the performance of our duties KM-HA-CL2 8.3.3.2 provides opportunities for informal individual development other than formal training such as work assignment and job rotation KM-HA-CL3 8.3.3.3 encourages people to attend seminars, symposia and so on KM-HA-CL4 8.3.3.4 provides various programmes such as clubs and community gathering KM-HA-CL5 8.3.3.5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training KM-HA-CL6 8.3.3.6 members are satisfied with the self-development programmes Culture: Rewards / Incentives (CI) In our company… KM-HA-CI1 8.3.4.1 it is more likely that I will be given a pay rise or promotion if I finish a large amount of work KM-HA-CI2 8.3.4.2 it is more likely that I will be given a pay rise or promotion if I do a high- quality work KM-HA-CI3 8.3.4.3 getting work done quickly increase my chances of a pay rise or promotion KM-HA-CI4 8.3.4.4 getting work done on time is rewarded with high pay KM-HA-CI5 8.3.4.5 when I finish my job on time, my job is more secured KM-HA-CI6 8.3.4.6 in my team, knowledge sharing is strongly encouraged Transformational Leadership (TL) In our company… KM-HA-TL1 8.3.5.1 I feel comfortable with the concept of shared leadership KM-HA-TL2 8.3.5.2 our organisational leaders motivate employees to share knowledge KM-HA-TL3 8.3.5.3 our organisational leaders build up trust amongst employees to share knowledge KM-HA-TL4 8.3.5.4 our organisational leaders promote initiatives to acquire knowledge KM-HA-TL5 8.3.5.5 our organisation actively develops leadership skills of our staff KM-HA-TL6 8.3.5.6 knowledge is acquired by one-to-one mentoring KM-HA-TL7 8.3.5.7 informal conversations and meeting are used for knowledge sharing KM-HA-TL8 8.3.5.8 our organisation provides rewards and incentives for sharing knowledge Teamwork (TW) In our company… KM-HA-TW1 8.3.6.1 I feel comfortable with the concept of shared leadership KM-HA-TW2 8.3.6.2 I feel comfortable with the decision-making process within the team KM-HA-TW3 8.3.6.3 I spend time with team members to clarify the expectations of the team KM-HA-TW4 8.3.6.4 team exercises good judgement during decision-making process KM-HA-TW5 8.3.6.5 team members provide input/thoughts throughout the project KM-HA-TW6 8.3.6.6 I help my team whenever anyone has difficulties in performing tasks

Appendix C

sustainability-15-04896-t0A6_Table A6 Table A6 Measurement model (outer model). ConstructItemF.L. 1Com. 2Weight Knowledge Management (KM) Organization/Methodology (OM) 0.91 0.83 0.48 ICT Systems (ICT) 0.72 0.52 0.26 Human Aspects (HA) 0.91 0.82 0.41 Stakeholder Engagement (SE) 7.1.6 0.75 0.57 0.11 7.2.6 0.81 0.66 0.12 7.3.6 0.82 0.67 0.11 7.4.6 0.77 0.59 0.12 7.5.6 0.74 0.55 0.14 7.6.6 0.82 0.67 0.14 7.7.6 0.78 0.60 0.13 7.8.6 0.74 0.55 0.10 7.9.6 0.81 0.66 0.14 7.10.6 0.68 0.47 0.19 Sustainability in Project Management (SPM) Economic (EC) 0.86 0.73 0.41 Environment (EN) 0.74 0.55 0.26 Social (SO) 0.90 0.81 0.51 Knowledge Management (KM) × Virtual Teams (VT) Cultural Intelligence (CI) × OM 0.85 0.73 0.09 Communication Accommodation (CA) × OM 0.88 0.77 0.09 Team Synergy (TS) × OM 0.82 0.67 0.07 Team Direction (TD) × OM 0.85 0.72 0.08 Multi-Regional Virtual Team (MR) × OM 0.66 0.43 0.09 Environment and Resources (ER) × OM 0.76 0.58 0.08 Cultural Intelligence (CI) × ICT 0.75 0.56 0.06 Communication Accommodation (CA) × ICT 0.76 0.58 0.06 Team Synergy (TS) × ICT 0.79 0.63 0.05 Team Direction (TD) × ICT 0.83 0.68 0.06 Multi-Regional Virtual Team (MR) × ICT 0.61 0.37 0.07 Environment and Resources (ER) × ICT 0.68 0.47 0.06 Cultural Intelligence (CI) × HA 0.81 0.65 0.08 Communication Accommodation (CA) × HA 0.85 0.72 0.08 Team Synergy (TS) × HA 0.80 0.64 0.06 Team Direction (TD) × HA 0.83 0.69 0.07 Multi-Regional Virtual Team (MR) × HA 0.62 0.38 0.08 Environment and Resources (ER) × HA 0.73 0.53 0.07 Stakeholder Engagement (SE) × Virtual Teams (VT) Cultural Intelligence (CI) × 7.1 0.75 0.56 0.02 Cultural Intelligence (CI) × 7.2 0.79 0.62 0.02 Cultural Intelligence (CI) × 7.3 0.78 0.61 0.02 Cultural Intelligence (CI) × 7.4 0.75 0.56 0.02 Cultural Intelligence (CI) × 7.5 0.75 0.57 0.03 Cultural Intelligence (CI) × 7.6 0.79 0.63 0.03 Cultural Intelligence (CI) × 7.7 0.79 0.62 0.03 Cultural Intelligence (CI) × 7.8 0.75 0.57 0.02 Cultural Intelligence (CI) × 7.9 0.79 0.62 0.03 Cultural Intelligence (CI) × 7.10 0.70 0.49 0.03 Communication Accommodation (CA) × 7.1 0.74 0.55 0.02 Communication Accommodation (CA) × 7.2 0.81 0.66 0.02 Communication Accommodation (CA) × 7.3 0.81 0.65 0.02 Communication Accommodation (CA) × 7.4 0.79 0.62 0.02 Communication Accommodation (CA) × 7.5 0.76 0.58 0.02 Communication Accommodation (CA) × 7.6 0.81 0.66 0.02 Communication Accommodation (CA) × 7.7 0.78 0.61 0.02 Communication Accommodation (CA) × 7.8 0.75 0.56 0.02 Communication Accommodation (CA) × 7.9 0.83 0.68 0.02 Communication Accommodation (CA) × 7.10 0.70 0.49 0.03 Team Synergy (TS) × 7.1 0.73 0.53 0.02 Team Synergy (TS) × 7.2 0.78 0.61 0.02 Team Synergy (TS) × 7.3 0.76 0.57 0.02 Team Synergy (TS) × 7.4 0.75 0.56 0.02 Team Synergy (TS) × 7.5 0.74 0.54 0.02 Team Synergy (TS) × 7.6 0.76 0.57 0.02 Team Synergy (TS) × 7.7 0.78 0.60 0.02 Team Synergy (TS) × 7.8 0.71 0.50 0.02 Team Synergy (TS) × 7.9 0.77 0.60 0.02 Team Synergy (TS) × 7.10 0.69 0.48 0.03 Team Direction (TD) × 7.1 0.77 0.59 0.02 Team Direction (TD) × 7.2 0.80 0.64 0.02 Team Direction (TD) × 7.3 0.81 0.65 0.02 Team Direction (TD) × 7.4 0.79 0.62 0.02 Team Direction (TD) × 7.5 0.78 0.62 0.03 Team Direction (TD) × 7.6 0.79 0.63 0.02 Team Direction (TD) × 7.7 0.79 0.62 0.02 Team Direction (TD) × 7.8 0.76 0.57 0.02 Team Direction (TD) × 7.9 0.82 0.67 0.02 Team Direction (TD) × 7.10 0.74 0.55 0.03 Multi-Regional Virtual Team (MR) × 7.1 0.59 0.35 0.02 Multi-Regional Virtual Team (MR) × 7.2 0.65 0.42 0.02 Multi-Regional Virtual Team (MR) × 7.3 0.65 0.42 0.02 Multi-Regional Virtual Team (MR) × 7.4 0.65 0.42 0.02 Multi-Regional Virtual Team (MR) × 7.5 0.60 0.36 0.02 Multi-Regional Virtual Team (MR) × 7.6 0.66 0.43 0.02 Multi-Regional Virtual Team (MR) × 7.7 0.64 0.41 0.02 Multi-Regional Virtual Team (MR) × 7.8 0.61 0.37 0.02 Multi-Regional Virtual Team (MR) × 7.9 0.67 0.45 0.02 Multi-Regional Virtual Team (MR) × 7.10 0.57 0.32 0.03 Environment and Resources (ER) × 7.1 0.66 0.44 0.02 Environment and Resources (ER) × 7.2 0.73 0.53 0.02 Environment and Resources (ER) × 7.3 0.71 0.51 0.02 Environment and Resources (ER) × 7.4 0.72 0.52 0.02 Environment and Resources (ER) × 7.5 0.70 0.49 0.02 Environment and Resources (ER) × 7.6 0.73 0.53 0.02 Environment and Resources (ER) × 7.7.5 0.72 0.52 0.02 Environment and Resources (ER) × 7.8 0.69 0.47 0.02 Environment and Resources (ER) × 7.9 0.74 0.54 0.02 Environment and Resources (ER) × 7.10 0.66 0.44 0.03 [sup.1] Factorial Load; [sup.2] commonality.

References

1. J. Vrchota; P. Rehor; M. Maríková; M. Pech Critical Success Factors of the Project Management in Relation to Industry 4.0 for Sustainability of Projects., 2021, 13, 281. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010281.

2. A.J. Gilbert Silvius; R. Schipper Exploring the Relationship between Sustainability and Project Success—Conceptual Model and Expected Relationships., 2016, 4,pp. 5-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12821/ijispm040301.

3. A.J. Gilbert Silvius; R.P.J. Schipper Sustainability in Project Management: A Literature Review and Impact Analysis., 2016, 4,pp. 63-96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1362/204440814X13948909253866.

4. M.S. Castro; B. Bahli; A. Barcaui; R. Figueiredo Does One Project Success Measure Fit All? An Empirical Investigation of Brazilian Projects., 2021, 14,pp. 788-805. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-01-2020-0028.

5. G. Blak Bernat; E.L. Qualharini; M.S. Castro; M. Dias Sustainability in Project Management and Project Success with Teams in Virtual Environment., 2022, 12,pp. 61024-61031. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37118/ijdr.26028.12.2022.

6. D. Toljaga-Nikolic; M. Todorovic; M. Dobrota; T. Obradovic; V. Obradovic Project Management and Sustainability: Playing Trick or Treat with the Planet., 2020, 12, 8619. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208619.

7. J. Elkington, New Society Publishers: Stoney Creek, CT, USA, 1997,

8. C. Labuschagne; A.C. Brent Sustainable Project Life Cycle Management: The Need to Integrate Life Cycles in the Manufacturing Sector., 2005, 23,pp. 159-168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.06.003.

9. P. Goel, EBSCO Information Services: Ipswich, MA, USA, 2013, ISBN: 9783642280368.

10. A. Khalifeh; P. Farrell; M. Al-edenat The Impact of Project Sustainability Management (PSM) on Project Success: A Systematic Literature Review., 2020, 39,pp. 453-474. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-02-2019-0045.

11. S. Armenia; R.M. Dangelico; F. Nonino; A. Pompei Sustainable Project Management: A Conceptualization-Oriented Review and a Framework Proposal for Future Studies., 2019, 11, 2664. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092664.

12. F.J. Gomes Silva; K. Kirytopoulos; L. Pinto Ferreira; J.C. Sá; G. Santos; M.C. Cancela Nogueira The Three Pillars of Sustainability and Agile Project Management: How Do They Influence Each Other., 2022, 29,pp. 1495-1512. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2287.

13. J. Larsson; L. Larsson Integration, Application and Importance of Collaboration in Sustainable Project Management., 2020, 12, 585. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020585.

14. M.L. Martens; M.M. Carvalho The Challenge of Introducing Sustainability into Project Management Function: Multiple-Case Studies., 2016, 117,pp. 29-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.039.

15. G. Silvius Sustainability as a New School of Thought in Project Management., 2017, 166,pp. 1479-1493. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.121.

16. B. Liu; B. Xue; J. Meng; X. Chen; T. Sun How Project Management Practices Lead to Infrastructure Sustainable Success: An Empirical Study Based on Goal-Setting Theory., 2020, 27,pp. 2797-2833. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-08-2019-0463.

17. H. Liu; Z. Liu; Y. Lai; L. Li Factors Influencing Collaborative Innovation Project Performance: The Case of China., 2021, 13, 7380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137380.

18. J. Khan; B. Javed; N. Mubarak; S. Bashir; M. Jaafar Psychological Empowerment and Project Success: The Role of Knowledge Sharing., 2022, 69,pp. 2997-3008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2020.3026093.

19. B.H. Reich; A. Gemino; C. Sauer How Knowledge Management Impacts Performance in Projects: An Empirical Study., 2014, 32,pp. 590-602. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.09.004.

20. A. Heravi; V. Coffey; B. Trigunarsyah Evaluating the Level of Stakeholder Involvement during the Project Planning Processes of Building Projects., 2015, 33,pp. 985-997. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.12.007.

21. M.S. Castro; B. Bahli; J.R. Farias Filho; A. Barcaui A Contemporary Vision of Project Success Criteria., 2019, 16,pp. 66-77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14488/BJOPM.2019.v16.n1.a6.

22. I. Dumitrascu-Baldau; D.D. Dumitrascu; G. Dobrota Predictive Model for the Factors Influencing International Project Success: A Data Mining Approach., 2021, 13, 3819. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073819.

23. A. Presbitero Communication Accommodation within Global Virtual Team: The Influence of Cultural Intelligence and the Impact on Interpersonal Process Effectiveness., 2021, 27,p. 100809. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2020.100809.

24. J. Stiles; M.J. Smart, Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2021, Volume 8, ISBN: 0123456789.

25. G. Silvius; R. Schipper Planning Project Stakeholder Engagement from a Sustainable Development Perspective., 2019, 9, 46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9020046.

26. M.L. Martens; M.M. Carvalho Sustainability and Success Variables in the Project Management Context: An Expert Panel., 2016, 47,pp. 24-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/875697281604700603.

27. D. Goedknegt; G. Silvius The Implementation of Sustainability Principles in Project Management.,pp. 875-882.

28. N. Wang; K. Wei; H. Sun Whole Life Project Management Approach to Sustainability., 2014, 30,pp. 246-255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000185.

29. M.L. Martens; M.M. Carvalho Key Factors of Sustainability in Project Management Context: A Survey Exploring the Project Managers’ Perspective., 2017, 35,pp. 1084-1102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.04.004.

30. M.M. Carvalho; R. Rabechini Can Project Sustainability Management Impact Project Success? An Empirical Study Applying a Contingent Approach., 2017, 35,pp. 1120-1132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.018.

31. S. Marcelino-Sádaba; L.F. González-Jaen; A. Pérez-Ezcurdia Using Project Management as a Way to Sustainability. from a Comprehensive Review to a Framework Definition., 2015, 99,pp. 1-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.020.

32. L.G. Abadia; M.M. Carvalho Sustentabilidade Na Literatura de Gestão de Projetos: Temas Centrais, Tendências e Lacunas., 2018, 13,pp. 52-75.

33. P. Eskerod; M. Huemann Sustainable Development and Project Stakeholder Management: What Standards Say., 2013, 6,pp. 36-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/17538371311291017.

34. S. Sharma; I. Henriques Stakeholder Influences on Sustainability Practices in the Canadian Forest Products Industry., 2005, 26,pp. 159-180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.439.

35., International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010,

36. H. Park; K. Kim; Y.-W. Kim; H. Kim Stakeholder Management in Long-Term Complex Megaconstruction Projects: The Saemangeum Project., 2017, 33,p. 05017002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000515.

37. M.B. Shaukat; K.F. Latif; A. Sajjad; G. Eweje Revisiting the Relationship between Sustainable Project Management and Project Success: The Moderating Role of Stakeholder Engagement and Team Building., 2022, 30,pp. 58-75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2228.

38. P. Withisuphakorn; I. Batra; N. Parameswar; S. Dhir Sustainable Development in Practice: Case Study of L’Oréal., 2019, 13,pp. 35-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24052/JBRMR/V13ISSP/ART-4.

39. D.F. Uribe; I. Ortiz-Marcos; Á. Uruburu What Is Going on with Stakeholder Theory in Project Management Literature? A Symbiotic Relationship for Sustainability., 2018, 10, 1300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041300.

40. S.Z. Shariq Knowledge Management: An Emerging Discipline., 1997, 1,pp. 75-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000004582.

41. M. Alavi; A. Tiwana Knowledge Integration in Virtual Teams: The Potential Role of KMS., 2002, 53,pp. 1029-1037. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10107.

42. I. Nonaka; R. Toyama; N. Konno SECI, Ba and Leadership: A Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation., 2000, 33,pp. 5-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(99)00115-6.

43. J.J.J. Kasvi; M. Vartiainen; M. Hailikari Managing Knowledge and Knowledge Competences in Projects and Project Organisations., 2003, 21,pp. 571-582. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00057-1.

44. B. Hanisch; F. Lindner; A. Mueller; A. Wald Knowledge Management in Project Environments., 2009, 13,pp. 148-160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270910971897.

45. P.I. Oluikpe Knowledge Creation and Utilization in Project Teams., 2015, 19,pp. 351-371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2014-0214.

46. V.S. Gunasekera; S.C. Chong Knowledge Management Critical Success Factors and Project Management Performance Outcomes in Major Construction Organisations in Sri Lanka: A Case Study., 2018, 48,pp. 537-558. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-06-2018-0051.

47. V. Davidaviciene; K. Al Majzoub; I. Meidute-Kavaliauskiene Factors A Ff Ecting Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Teams., 2020, 12, 6917. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176917.

48. PMI PMBOKGuideSeventhEd_ENG.Pdf. 2021,. Available online: https://www.baogaoting.com/info/98323 <date-in-citation content-type="access-date" iso-8601-date="2023-01-01">(accessed on 1 January 2023)</date-in-citation>.

49. P.S.W. Fong Knowledge Creation in Multidisciplinary Project Teams: An Empirical Study of the Processes and Their Dynamic Interrelationships., 2003, 21,pp. 479-486. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(03)00047-4.

50. I. Nonaka; R. Toyama; N. Konno SECI, Ba, and Leadership., 2002, 33,pp. 13-43.

51. P.S.W. Fong; C.W.C. Kwok Organizational Culture and Knowledge Management Success at Project and Organizational Levels in Contracting Firms., 2009, 135,pp. 1348-1356. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000106.

52. O. Aghaegbuna; C. Tasmiyah; B. Zanoxolo; M. Nikiwe Sustainability in Project Management Practice., 2020, 312,p. 02015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202031202015.

53. J. Cárcel-Carrasco; J.A. Cárcel-Carrasco Analysis for the Knowledge Management Application in Maintenance Engineering: Perception from Maintenance Technicians., 2021, 11, 703. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/app11020703.

54. M. Ajmal; P. Helo; T. Kekäle Critical Factors for Knowledge Management in Project Business., 2010, 14,pp. 156-168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271011015633.

55. K.M. Chudoba; E. Wynn; M. Lu; M.B. Watson-Manheim How Virtual Are We? Measuring Virtuality and Understanding Its Impact in a Global Organization., 2005, 15,pp. 279-306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2005.00200.x.

56. P. Bookhamer; Z.J. Zhang Knowledge Management in a Global Context: A Case Study., 2016, 29,pp. 57-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/IRMJ.2016010104.

57. I. Nonaka; H. Takeuchi, Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1995, ISBN: 9780199879922.

58. M. Pace A Correlational Study on Project Management Methodology and Project Success., 2019, 9,pp. 56-65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jeppm-2019-0007.

59. T.S. Nguyen; S. Mohamed; K. Panuwatwanich Stakeholder Management in Complex Project: Review of Contemporary Literature., 2018, 8,pp. 75-89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32738/JEPPM.201807.0003.

60. J. Meredith; O. Zwikael When Is a Project Successful?., 2019, 47,pp. 127-134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/EMR.2019.2928961.

61. M. Shahzad; Y. Qu; A.U. Zafar; X. Ding; S.U. Rehman Translating Stakeholders’ Pressure into Environmental Practices—The Mediating Role of Knowledge Management., 2020, 275,p. 124163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124163.

62. G. Levin Knowledge Management Success Equals Project Management Success., Project Management Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2010,

63. M.A. Thomas; Y. Li; V. Sistenich; K.N. Diango; D. Kabongo A Multi-Stakeholder Engagement Framework for Knowledge Management in ICT4D., 2022,pp. 1-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24703.

64. J.J. Molwus; B. Erdogan; S. Ogunlana Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) to Understand the Relationships among Critical Success Factors (CSFs) for Stakeholder Management in Construction., 2017, 24,pp. 426-450. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-10-2015-0161.

65. M.A. Saunders; P. Lewis, Pearson: London, UK, 2019, ISBN: 9781292208787.

66. T.S. Nguyen; S. Mohamed Mediation Effect of Stakeholder Management between Stakeholder Characteristics and Project Performance., 2021, 11,pp. 102-117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jeppm-2021-0011.

67. V.E. Vinzi; L. Trinchera; S. Amato PLS Path Modeling: From Foundations to Recent Developments and Open Issues for Model Assessment and Improvement., Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010,pp. 47-82. ISBN: 978-3-540-32825-4.

68. A. Alvarez-Risco; S. Mlodzianowska; V. García-Ibarra; M.A. Rosen; S. Del-Aguila-Arcentales Factors Affecting Green Entrepreneurship Intentions in Business University Students in COVID-19 Pandemic Times: Case of Ecuador., 2021, 13, 6447. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116447.

69. C. Fornell; D.F. Larcker Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error., 1981, 18,p. 39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104.

70. J. Henseler; C.M. Ringle; R.R. Sinkovics The Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing., Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2009,pp. 277-319.

71., Tata McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 1994, ISBN: 9780071070881.

72. J. Nunnally; I. Bernstein, 3rd ed. edition; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994, ISBN: 9780070478497 e 007047849X.

73. J. Hair; M. Sarstedt; L. Hopkins; V. Kuppelwieser Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM): An Emerging Tool for Business Research., 2014, 26,pp. 106-121. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128.

74. R. Hoyle; J. Duvall Determining the Number of Factors in Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis., SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2004,

75. G. Raîche; T. Walls; D. Magis; M. Riopel; J.-G. Blais Non-Graphical Solutions for Cattell’s Scree Test., 2013, 9,pp. 23-29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000051.

76. J. Hair; W. Black; B. Babin; R. Anderson, Prentice Hall: London, UK, 2009,

77. K.R. Fossum; J.C. Binder; T.K. Madsen; W. Aarseth; B. Andersen Success Factors in Global Project Management: A Study of Practices in Organizational Support and the Effects on Cost and Schedule., 2020, 13,pp. 128-152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-09-2018-0182.

78. M. Stanitsas; K. Kirytopoulos; V. Leopoulos Integrating Sustainability Indicators into Project Management: The Case of Construction Industry., 2021, 279,p. 123774. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123774.

79. B. Koke; R.C. Moehler Earned Green Value Management for Project Management: A Systematic Review., 2019, 230,pp. 180-197. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.079.

80. F. Lindner; A. Wald Success Factors of Knowledge Management in Temporary Organizations., 2011, 29,pp. 877-888. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.09.003.

81. B.H. Reich; A. Gemino; C. Sauer Knowledge Management and Project-Based Knowledge in It Projects: A Model and Preliminary Empirical Results., 2012, 30,pp. 663-674. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.12.003.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1: SECI process of knowledge spiral in virtual teams—adapted from [57]. [Please download the PDF to view the image]

Figure 2: The hypothetical theoretical model. [Please download the PDF to view the image]

Figure 3: The conceptual model and hypotheses. [Please download the PDF to view the image]

Figure 4: Structural model illustration. [Please download the PDF to view the image]

Table 1: Description of model hypotheses.

Table 2: Validation of the measurement model.

[sup.1] Average variance extracted; [sup.2] maximum shared variance; [sup.3] Cronbach’s alpha; [sup.4] composite reliability; [sup.5] dimensionality.

Table 3: Structural model (inner model).

[sup.1] Standard Error; [sup.2] bootstrap confidence interval; Gof = 48.82 percent; [sup.3]p-value < 0.001 and r = 0.6474 (KM × SE).

Table 4: The results of the null and alternative hypotheses of the model.

Table 5: The results of the initial hypotheses of the model.

Author Affiliation(s):

[1] Programa de Engenharia Ambiental, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Av. Athos da Silveira Ramos, 149, D-207, Centro de Tecnologia, Cidade Universitária, Ilha do Fundão, Rio de Janeiro 21941-901, Brazil

[2] Planning and Management Research Nucleus (NPPG), Escola Politécnica de Engenharia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Av. Athos da Silveira Ramos, 149, D-207, Centro de Tecnologia, Cidade Universitária, Ilha do Fundão, Rio de Janeiro 21941-901, Brazil

[3] Departamento de Construção Civil, Escola Politécnica de Engenharia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Av. Athos da Silveira Ramos, 149, D-207, Centro de Tecnologia, Cidade Universitária, Ilha do Fundão, Rio de Janeiro 21941-901, Brazil

[4] Research Center in Business Sciences (NECE), Universidade Beira Interior (UBI), Rua Marquês D’Ávila e Bolama, 6201-001 Covilhã, Portugal

[5] Escola Superior de Ciências Empresariais (ESCE), Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal, Campus do IPS—Estefanilha Edifício Sede, 2910-761 Setúbal, Portugal

Author Note(s):

[*] Correspondence: gisele.blak@poli.ufrj.br; Tel.: +55-21-99968-5665

DOI: 10.3390/su15064896