Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Moderating Role of Project Innovativeness on Project Flexibility, Project Risk, Project Performance, and Business Success in Financial Services

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Project risk management is crucial for project success and for achieving short-term and long-term project goals. This study examines the linkage between the management of project risks and project flexibility for information technology projects in Financial Services. A conceptual framework establishing the link between project risks, project flexibility, project performance, and business success, with project innovativeness as a moderating variable, has been introduced. To test the model, data were collated from over 400 managers working in Financial Services projects. The empirical outcomes through a Ordinal regression analysis demonstrate a substantial association between the management of project risks, project flexibility, and success of projects. Project innovativeness moderates the effects of project risks and project flexibility on project performance. Furthermore, managing project risks is vital to reduce the likelihood of failures in projects. This paper enriches existing research by applying a contingency perspective to project risk management and provides practical guidance for managing risks in projects professionally and also the relevancy of project flexibility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Afful, E., & Matey, H. A. (2019). IT project success: Practical frameworks based on key project control variables. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.06215.

  • Aguinis, H. (1995). Statistical power problems with moderated multiple regression in management research. Journal of Management, 21(6), 1141–1158

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahmad, M. S. (2012). Impact of organizational culture on performance management practices in Pakistan. Business Intelligence Journal, 5(1), 50–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albert, M., Balve, P., & Spang, K. (2017). Evaluation of project success: A structured literature review. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 10(4), 796–821. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-01-2017-0004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aladwani, A. M. (2002). IT project uncertainty, planning and success. Information Technology & People, 8(2), 50–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Alias, Z., Zawawi, E. M. A., Yusof, K., & Aris, N. M. (2014). Determining critical success factors of project management practice: A conceptual framework. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 153, 61–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aljawder, M., & Davis, J. G. (2013). A contingent model of project organization and management. (pp. 1–9). The University of Sydney.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Association for Project Management (APM). (2006). APM body of knowledge. (5th ed.). APM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkin, B., & Skitmore, M. (2008). Stakeholder management in construction. Construction Management and Economics, 26(6), 549–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, R. (1999). Project management: Cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project Management, 17(6), 337–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima, K., & Evangelista, F. (2000). Cross-functional influence in new product development: An exploratory study of marketing and R&D perspectives. Management Science, 46(10), 1269–1284. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.10.1269.12273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aurum, A., & Wohlin, C. (2006). Criteria for selecting software requirements to create product value: An industrial empirical study. Value-Based Software Engineering.

    Google Scholar 

  • Awe, O. A., Woodside, A. G., Nerur, S., & Prater, E. (2020). Capturing heterogeneities in orchestrating resources for accurately forecasting high (separately low) project management performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 224, 107556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baccarini, D. (1999). The logical framework method for defining project success. Project management journal, 30(4), 25–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bannerman, P. L. (2008). Risk and risk management in software projects: A reassessment. Journal of Systems and Software, 81(12), 2118–2133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barki, H., Rivard, S., & Talbot, J. (2001). An integrative contingency model of software project risk management. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(4), 37–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayiley, Y. T., & Teklu, G. K. (2016). Success factors and criteria in the management of international development projects: Evidence from projects funded by the European Union in Ethiopia. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 9(3), 562–582. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-06-2015-0046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berggren, C. (2019). The cumulative power of incremental innovation and the role of project sequence management. International Journal of Project Management, 37(3), 461–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, B. W. (1981). Software engineering economics. Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, C., & Ambrosini, V. (2000). Value creation versus value capture: Towards a coherent definition of value in strategy. British Journal of Management, 11(1), 1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brink, T. (2017). Managing uncertainty for sustainability of complex projects. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 10(2), 315–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broekhuizen, T. L., Bakker, T., & Postma, T. J. (2018). Implementing new business models: What challenges lie ahead? Business Horizons, 61(4), 555–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryde, D. J. (2005). Methods for managing different perspectives of project success. British Journal of Management, 16(2), 119–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho, M. M., & Rabechini, R., Jr. (2017). Can project sustainability management impact project success? An empirical study applying a contingent approach. International Journal of Project Management, 35(6), 1120–1132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho, M. M. D., & Rabechini Jr., R. (2015). Impact of risk management on project performance: The importance of soft skills. International Journal of Production Research, 53(2), 321–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chipulu, M., Ojiako, U., Gardiner, P., Williams, T., Mota, C., Maguire, S., et al. (2014). Exploring the impact of cultural values on project performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 34(3), 364–389. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-04-2012-0156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chipulu, M., & Vahidi, R. (2020). The dependence upon context of project critical success factors: Test of the contingency hypothesis and effects of technological uncertainty and collectivism culture. Production Planning & Control, 31(15), 1261–1275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G. (1999). The invisible success factors in product innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16(2), 115–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conforto, E. C., & Amaral, D. C. (2010). Evaluating an agile method for planning and controlling innovative projects. Project Management Journal, 41(2), 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Couillard, J. (1995). The role of project risk in determining project management approach. Project Management Journal, 26(4), 3–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Cserháti, G., & Szabó, L. (2014). The relationship between success criteria and success factors in organisational event projects. International Journal of Project Management, 32(4), 613–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, E., & Sweeney, B. (2019). Flexibility and control in managing collaborative and in-house NPD. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 15(1), 30–57. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-07-2017-0057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dandage, R. V., Rane, S. B., & Mantha, S. S. (2021). Modelling human resource dimension of international project risk management. Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing. https://doi.org/10.1108/JGOSS-11-2019-0065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2001). Product dimensions and their relation with project selection and performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18(6), 357–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das, P., Verburg, R., Verbraeck, A., & Bonebakker, L. (2018). Barriers to innovation within large financial services firms. European Journal of Innovation Management.

  • Davis, P. (2007). The effectiveness of relational contracting in a temporary public organization: Intensive collaboration between an English local authority and private contractors. Public Administration, 85(2), 383–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delic, M., & Eyers, D. R. (2020). The effect of additive manufacturing adoption on supply chain flexibility and performance: An empirical analysis from the automotive industry. International Journal of Production Economics, 228, 107689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Meyer, A., Loch, C. H., & Pich, M. T. (2002). Managing project uncertainty: From variation to chaos. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(2), 60–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewar, R. D., & Dutton, J. E. (1986). The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science, 32(11), 1422–1433. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.11.1422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diab, M., & Mehany, M. (2021). Contingency use and project delivery influence on infrastructure project risk assessment. (pp. 589–592). Collaboration and Integration in Construction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drouin, N., Müller, R., & Sankaran, S. (2018). Balancing vertical and horizontal leadership in projects: Empirical studies from Australia, Canada, Norway and Sweden. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 4, 986–1006. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-01-2018-0002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Tabrizi, B. N. (1995). Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 84–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, G., & Jacobson, R. (1992). Gaining comparative advantage through discretionary expenditures: The returns to R&D and advertising. Management Science, 38(9), 1264–1279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, S., & Bahrami, H. (2020). Super-flexibility in practice: Insights from a crisis. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 21, 207–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-020-00246-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Floricel, S., Piperca, S., & Banik, M. (2012). Increasing project flexibility: The response capacity of complex projects. Project Management Journal, 43(4), 2–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu, F. Q., & Elliott, M. T. (2013). The moderating effect of perceived product innovativeness and product knowledge on new product adoption: An integrated model. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 21(3), 257–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García-Villaverde, P. M., Rodrigo-Alarcon, J., Ruiz-Ortega, M. J., & Parra-Requena, G. (2018). The role of knowledge absorptive capacity on the relationship between cognitive social capital and entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(5), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-07-2017-0304/full/html

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19, 110–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geraldi, J. G. (2008). The balance between order and chaos in multi-project firms: A conceptual model. International Journal of Project Management, 26(4), 348–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gemünden, H. G., Salomo, S., & Krieger, A. (2005). The influence of project autonomy on project success. International Journal of Project Management, 23(5), 366–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, S. G., Gavin, M. B., & Aiman-Smith, L. (1995). Assessing a multidimensional measure of radical technological innovation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 42, 203–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S., Martin, M., Fernandez, W., Stern, S., & Vitale, M. (2006). The transformational dimension in the realization of business value from information technology. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 15(3), 249–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghanbaripour, A. N., Golmoradi, M., Langston, C., Skulmoski, G., & Arqoub, M. A. (2020). The effect of project manager’s management style on project delivery success in construction projects. International Journal of Construction Management, 1–10.

  • Ghasemaghaei, M. (2020). The role of positive and negative valence factors on the impact of bigness of data on big data analytics usage. International Journal of Information Management, 50, 395–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guide, V. D. R. Jr., & Ketokivi, M. (2015). Notes from the editors: Redefining some methodological criteria for the journal. Journal of Operations Management, 37(1), v–viii

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, F., Chang-Richards, Y., Wilkinson, S., & Li, T. C. (2014). Effects of project governance structures on the management of risks in major infrastructure projects: A comparative analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 32(5), 815–826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, P. J., & Suri, P. K. (2018). Analysing the influence of improved situation, capability level of actors and flexible process workflow on public value of e-governance projects in India, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 19(4), 349–372.

  • Gupta, S. K., Gunasekaran, A., Antony, J., Gupta, S., Bag, S., & Roubaud, D. (2019). Systematic literature review of project failures: Current trends and scope for future research. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 127, 274–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunduz, M., Nielsen, Y., & Ozdemir, M. (2013). Quantification of delay factors using the relative importance index method for construction projects in Turkey. Journal of Management in Engineering, 29(2), 133–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanisch, B., & Wald, A. (2012). A bibliometric view on the use of contingency theory in project management research. Project Management Journal, 43(3), 4–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, M., & Löbler, H. (2013). Measuring value-in-context from a service-dominant logic’s perspective. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanisch, B., & Wald, A. (2011). A project management research framework integrating multiple theoretical perspectives and influencing factors. Project Management Journal, 42(3), 4–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haseeb, M., Lu, X., Bibi, A., Maloof-ud-Dyian, X. X., & Rabbani, W. (2011). Problems of projects and effects of delays in the construction industry of pakistan. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, 1(5), 41–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazır, Ö., & Ulusoy, G. (2019). A classification and review of approaches and methods for modeling uncertainty in projects. International Journal of Production Economics, 107522.

  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ika, L. A. (2009). Project success as a topic in project management journals. Project Management Journal, 40(4), 6–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilincuta, A. (1997). Risk, project management and project success for software industry.

  • James, V. M. (2012). Achieve project success by delivering business value. Project Management Institute.

  • Jha, K. N., & Iyer, K. C. (2007). Commitment, coordination, competence and the iron triangle. International Journal of Project Management, 25(5), 527–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonas, D., Kock, A., & Gemünden, H. G. (2013). Predicting project portfolio success by measuring management quality: A longitudinal study. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 60(2), 215–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, M. P., & Das, S. R. (2015). Antecedents of innovativeness in technology-based services (TBS): Peering into the black box of entrepreneurial orientation. Decision Sciences, 46(2), 367–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joslin, R., & Müller, R. (2016a). The impact of project methodologies on project success in different project environments. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 9(2), 364–388. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-03-2015-0025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joslin, R., & Müller, R. (2016b). The relationship between project governance and project success. International Journal of Project Management, 34(4), 613–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.01.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jun, L., Qiuzhen, W., & Qingguo, M. (2011). The effects of project uncertainty and risk management on IS development project performance: A vendor perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 29(7), 923–933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanwal, F., Tang, C., Ur Rehman, A., Kanwal, T., & Fawad Sharif, S. M. (2020). Knowledge absorptive capacity and project innovativeness: The moderating role of internal and external social capital. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1–18.

  • Kapsali, M. (2011). Systems thinking in innovation project management: A match that works. International Journal of Project Management, 29(4), 396–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaut, M., Vaagen, H., & Wallace, S. W. (2020). The combined impact of stochastic and correlated activity durations and design uncertainty on project plans. International Journal of Production Economics, 108015.

  • Keil, M., Rai, A., & Liu, S. (2013). How user risk and requirements risk moderate the effects of formal and informal control on the process performance of IT projects. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(6), 650–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ketokivi, M. A., & Schroeder, R. G. (2004). Perceptual measures of performance: Fact or fiction? Journal of Operations Management, 22(3), 247–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ketokivi, M. (2006). Elaborating the contingency theory of organizations: The case of manufacturing flexibility strategies. Production and Operations Management, 15(2), 215–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, J., Malik, M., & Saleem, S. (2020). The impact of psychological empowerment of project-oriented employees on project success: A moderated mediation model. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 33(1), 1311–1329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khurum, M., Gorschek, T., & Wilson, M. (2013). The software value map—An exhaustive collection of value aspects for the development of software intensive products. Journal of software: Evolution and Process, 25(7), 711–741

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinschmidt, E. J., & Cooper, R. G. (1991). The impact of product innovativeness on performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 8(4), 240–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. (2016). The impact of contract characteristics on the performance of public–private partnerships (PPPs). Public Money & Management, 36(6), 455–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ko, D. G., & Kirsch, L. J. (2017). The hybrid IT project manager: One foot each in the IT and business domains. International Journal of Project Management, 35(3), 307–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kock, A., & Gemünden, H. G. (2021). How entrepreneurial orientation can leverage innovation project portfolio management. R&D Management, 51(1), 40–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreiner, K. (1995). In search of relevance: Project management in drifting environments. Scandinavian Journal of management, 11(4), 335–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kryvinska, N., Hacker, T. J., & Xhafa, F. (2014). Flexible complexity management and engineering by innovative services. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 15, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-013-0056-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kureshi, N. (2013). Project performance and contingency theory. Journal of Strategy and Performance Management, 1(2), 46–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. S., Keil, M., & Wong, K. F. E. (2021). When a growth mindset can backfire and cause escalation of commitment to a troubled information technology project. Information Systems Journal, 31(1), 7–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehtiranta, L., Kärnä, S., Junnonen, J. M., & Julin, P. (2012). The role of multi-firm satisfaction in construction project success. Construction Management and Economics, 30(6), 463–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, M. W., Welsh, M. A., Dehler, G. E., & Green, S. G. (2002). Product development tensions: Exploring contrasting styles of project management. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 546–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindman, M., Pennanen, K., Rothenstein, J., Scozzi, B., & Vincze, Z. (2016). The value space: How firms facilitate value creation. Business Process Management Journal.

  • Liu, Y., & Phillips, J. S. (2011). Examining the antecedents of knowledge sharing in facilitating team innovativeness from a multilevel perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 31(1), 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Llorens, B., & Viñoles-Cebolla, R. (2021). The influence of the use of project management tools and techniques on the achieved success. Project Management and Engineering Research, 159–171.

  • Lu, P., Yuan, S., & Wu, J. (2017). The interaction effect between intra-organizational and inter-organizational control on the project performance of new product development in open innovation. International Journal of Project Management, 35(8), 1627–1638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madaan, J. K., & Choudhary, D. A. (2015). Flexible decision model for risk analysis in product recovery systems. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 16, 313–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-015-0102-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maqbool, R., Sudong, Y., Manzoor, N., & Rashid, Y. (2017). The impact of emotional intelligence, project managers’ competencies, and transformational leadership on project success: An empirical perspective. Project Management Journal, 48(3), 58–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinsuo, M., & Lehtonen, P. (2007). Role of single-project management in achieving portfolio management efficiency. International Journal of Project Management, 25(1), 56–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114(2), 376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFarlan, F. W. (1981). Portfolio approach to information systems. Harvard Business Review, 59(5), 142–150

    Google Scholar 

  • McNally, R. C., Cavusgil, E., & Calantone, R. J. (2010). Product innovativeness dimensions and their relationships with product advantage, product financial performance, and project protocol. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(7), 991–1006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, W. G., Engelbrecht, H., & Steyn, H. (2017). Escalation of commitment: Evaluating project termination behaviour of masters of engineering management students. Journal of Contemporary Management, 14(1), 893–919

    Google Scholar 

  • Molaei, M., Hertogh, M. J., Bosch-Rekveldt, M. G., & Tamak, R. (2021). Factors affecting the integration of sustainability in the early project phases in an integrated project management model. (pp. 25–39). Research on Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montoya, M. (2016). Agile adoption by the financial services industry. Retrieved from cPrime https://www.cprime.com/2012/09/agile-adoptionfinancial-services-industry/.

  • Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organization. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1998). The convergence of planning and execution: Improvisation in new product development. Journal of Marketing., 62, 1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, P. W., & Hough, G. H. (1987). The anatomy of major projects: A study of the reality of project management. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mu, J., Peng, G., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2009). Effect of risk management strategy on NPD performance. Technovation, 29(3), 170–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, R., & Jugdev, K. (2012). Critical success factors in projects: Pinto, Slevin, and Prescott-the elucidation of project success. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(4), 757–775

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, R., Martinsuo, M., & Blomquist, T. (2008). Project portfolio control and portfolio management performance in different contexts. Project Management Journal, 39(3), 28–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muriana, C., & Vizzini, G. (2017). Project risk management: A deterministic quantitative technique for assessment and mitigation. International Journal of Project Management, 35(3), 320–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naeem, S., & Khanzada, B. (2017). Impact of transformational leadership in attainment of project success: The mediating role of job satisfaction. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 8(9), 168–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakata, C., Zhu, Z., & Izberk-Bilgin, E. (2010). Integrating marketing and information services functions: A complementarity and competence perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(5), 700–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0236-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nandakumar, M. K., Jharkharia, S., & Nair, A. (2013). Environmental uncertainty and flexibility. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 13(2), 121–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Nasr, A. H., Piya, S., & Al-Wardi, K. (2020). Analysis of factors affecting motivation in projects: A case study in oil and gas industry in Oman. The Journal of Engineering Research [TJER], 17(2), 112–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Norusis, M. (2008). SPSS statistics 17.0 advanced statistical procedures companion. Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1994). Psychometric theory 3E. Tata McGraw-Hill Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsson, N. O. E. (2006a). Management of flexibility in projects. International Journal of Project Management, 24(1), 66–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsson, N. O. E. (2006b). Project flexibility in large engineering projects. Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsson, N. O. E. (2008). External and internal flexibility–aligning projects with the business strategy and executing projects efficiently. International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, 1(1), 47–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olszak, C., & Zurada, J. (2019). Big data-driven value creation for organizations. In Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences.

  • Palanisamy, R., & Foshay, N. (2013). Impact of user’s internal flexibility and participation on usage and information systems flexibility. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 14, 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-013-0044-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, D., & Mobey, A. (2004). Action research to explore perceptions of risk in project management. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 53(1), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410400410509932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perminova, O., Gustafsson, M., & Wikström, K. (2008). Defining uncertainty in projects: A new perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 26(1), 73–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petit, Y. (2012). Project portfolios in dynamic environments: Organizing for uncertainty. International Journal of Project Management, 30(5), 539–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peiyu, L. I. U., & Dong, L. I. U. (2011). The new risk assessment model for information system in cloud computing environment. Procedia Engineering, 15, 3200–3204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellerin, R., & Perrier, N. (2019). A review of methods, techniques and tools for project planning and control. International Journal of Production Research, 57(7), 2160–2178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillipy, M. A. (2014). Delivering business value: The most important aspect of project management. Project Management Institute.

  • Pich, M. T., Loch, C. H., & de Meyer, A. (2002). On uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in project management. Management Science, 48(8), 1008–1023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinto, M. B., & Pinto, J. K. (1991). Determinants of cross-functional cooperation in the project implementation process. Project Management Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piya, S., Shamsuzzoha, A., & Khadem, M. (2020). Identification of critical factors and their interrelationships to design agile supply chain: Special focus to oil and gas industries. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 21, 263–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-020-00247-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PMI Standards Committee (2013). A guide to the project management body of knowledge, 5th ed. Project Management Institute.

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, J., & Adler, D. (2014). Does project management affect business productivity? Evidence from Australian small to medium enterprises. Project Management Journal, 45(6), 17–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Project Management Institute. (2013). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK ® guide)—5th edn. Author.

  • PMI. (2018). Success in disruptive times. Expanding the value delivery landscape to address the high cost of low performance. Pulse of the Profession®, Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.

  • Patil, M., & Suresh, M. (2019). Modelling the enablers of workforce agility in IoT projects: A TISM approach, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 20(2), 157–175.

  • Prabhakar, G. P. (2008). What is project success: A literature review. International Journal of Business and Management, 3(9), 3–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Raz, T., & Michael, E. (2001). Use and benefits of tools for project risk management. International Journal of Project Management, 19(1), 9–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raz, T., Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2002). Risk management, project success, and technological uncertainty. R&D Management, 32(2), 101–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raziq, M. M., Borini, F. M., Malik, O. F., Ahmad, M., & Shabaz, M. (2018). Leadership styles, goal clarity, and project success: Evidence from project-based organizations in Pakistan. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(2), 309–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritala, P., & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2013). Incremental and radical innovation in competition—The role of absorptive capacity and appropriability. Production Innovation Management, 30(1), 154–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00956.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roland, H. (2008). Using IT to drive effective risk management. Risk Management, 55(1), 43

    Google Scholar 

  • Ropponen, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2000). Components of software development risk: How to address them? A project manager survey. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 26(2), 98–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabahi, S., & Parast, M. M. (2020). The impact of entrepreneurship orientation on project performance: A machine learning approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 107621.

  • Salavou, H. (2004). The concept of innovativeness: Should we need to focus?. European Journal of Innovation Management.

  • Salomo, S., Steinhoff, F., & Trommsdorff, V. (2003). Customer orientation in innovation projects and new product development success-the moderating effect of product innovativeness. International Journal of Technology Management, 26(5–6), 442–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomo, S., Weise, J., & Gemünden, H. G. (2007). NPD planning activities and innovation performance: The mediating role of process management and the moderating effect of product innovativeness. Journal of product innovation management, 24(4), 285–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sambasivan, M., & Soon, Y. W. (2007). Causes and effects of delays in Malaysian construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 25(5), 517–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez-Silva, M. (2019). Flexibility of infrastructure management decisions: The case of a project expansion. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 15(1), 72–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. (2016). The art of business value. It Revolution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahu, R., Pundir, A. K., & Ganapathy, L. (2013). An empirical study on flexibility: A critical success factor of construction projects. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 13(3), 123–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shenhar, A. J. (2001). One size does not fit all projects: Exploring classical contingency domains. Management Science, 47(3), 394–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., Lechier, T., Poli, M. (2002). One size does not fit all—True for projects, true for frameworks. In Proceedings of PMI research conference 14–17 July. Project Management Institute, Seattle, U.S.A (pp. 99–106)

  • Shenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., & Maltz, A. C. (2001). Project success: A multidimensional strategic concept. Long Range Planning, 34(6), 699–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shivaani, M. V.  (2018). Does regulatory flexibility affect risk disclosures in annual report?. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 19(4), 321-336.

  • Shukla, S. K., Sushil, S., & Sharma, M. K. (2019). Managerial paradox toward flexibility: Emergent views using thematic analysis of literature. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 20, 349–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-019-00220-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siemsen, E., Balasubramanian, S., & Roth, A. V. (2007). Incentives that induce task-related effort, helping, and knowledge sharing in workgroups. Management science, 53(10), 1533–1550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinaiko, H. W., & Brislin, R. W. (1973). Evaluating language translations: Experiments on three assessment methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skorstad, E. J., & Ramsdal, H. (2016). Flexible organizations and the new working life: A European perspective. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommer, S. C., Loch, C. H., & Dong, J. (2009). Managing complexity and unforeseeable uncertainty in startup companies: An empirical study. Organization Science, 20(1), 118–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, X. M., & Montoya-Weiss, M. M. (1998). Critical development activities for really new versus incremental products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(2), 124–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spanuth, T., & Wald, A. (2017). How to unleash the innovative work behavior of project staff? The role of affective and performance-based factors. International Journal of Project Management, 35(7), 1302–1311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srića, V. (2008). Social intelligence and project leadership. The Business Review, 9(2), 189–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Szymanski, M. D., Kroff, W. M., & Troy, C. L. (2007). Innovativeness and new product success: Insights from the cumulative evidence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-006-0014-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talke, K., Salomo, S., & Kock, A. (2011). Top management team diversity and strategic innovation orientation: The relationship and consequences for innovativeness and performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(6), 819–832. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00851.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tam, C., da Costa Moura, E. J., Oliveira, T., & Varajão, J. (2020). The factors influencing the success of on-going agile software development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 38(3), 165–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Standish Group. (2019). CHAOS Manifesto 2019. Accessed November 2019, The Standish Group. Retrieved from http://standishgroup.com/newsroom/chaos\_manifesto\_2019.php.

  • Tatikonda, M. V., & Montoya-Weiss, M. M. (2001). Integrating operations and marketing perspectives of product innovation. The influence of organizational process factors and capabilities on development performance. Management Science, 47, 151–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teller, J., Unger, B. N., Kock, A., & Gemünden, H. G. (2012). Formalization of project portfolio management: The moderating role of project portfolio complexity. International Journal of Project Management, 30(5), 596–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teller, J., Kock, A., & Gemünden, H. G. (2014). Risk management in project portfolios is more than managing project risks: A contingency perspective on risk management. Project Management Journal, 45(4), 67–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unger, B. N., Kock, A., Gemünden, H. G., & Jonas, D. (2012). Enforcing strategic fit of project portfolios by project termination: An empirical study on senior management involvement. International Journal of Project Management, 30(6), 675–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, S., & Chapman, C. (2003). Transforming project risk management into project uncertainty management. International Journal of Project Management, 21(2), 97–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willauer, B. (2003). Consensus as key success factor in strategy-making. (1st ed.). Dt. Univ.-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willems, T., van Marrewijk, A., Kuitert, L., Volker, L., & Hermans, M. (2020). Practices of isolation: The shaping of project autonomy in innovation projects. International Journal of Project Management, 38(4), 215–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willumsen, P., Oehmen, J., Stingl, V., & Geraldi, J. (2019). Value creation through project risk management. International Journal of Project Management, 37(5), 731–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winch, G. M. (2014). Three domains of project organising. International Journal of Project Management, 32(5), 721–731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, G., Liu, C., Zhao, X., & Zuo, J. (2017). Investigating the relationship between communication-conflict interaction and project success among construction project teams. International Journal of Project Management, 35(8), 1466–1482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, T. T., & Wu, Y. T. (2020). Applying project-based learning and SCAMPER teaching strategies in engineering education to explore the influence of creativity on cognition, personal motivation, and personality traits. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 35, 100631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, V. A. (2016). Flexible management approach for globally distributed software projects. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 17, 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-015-0118-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zailani, S., Md Ariffin, H. A., Iranmanesh, M., Moeinzadeh, S., & Iranmanesh, M. (2016). The moderating effect of project risk mitigation strategies on the relationship between delay factors and construction project performance. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 7(3), 346–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaman, U., Nawaz, S., Tariq, S., & Humayoun, A. A. (2019). Linking transformational leadership and “multi-dimensions” of project success. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 13(1), 103–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, H. (2007). A redefinition of the project risk process: Using vulnerability to open up the event-consequence link. International Journal of Project Management, 25(7), 694–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwikael, O., Pathak, R. D., Singh, G., & Ahmed, S. (2014). The moderating effect of risk on the relationship between planning and success. International Journal of Project Management, 32(3), 435–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwikael, O., & Smyrk, J. (2015). Project governance: Balancing control and trust in dealing with risk. International Journal of Project Management, 33(4), 852–862

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business and Management, CHRIST (Deemed To Be University), Bengaluru, 560029, India

    Pankaj Tiwari & B Suresha

Authors
  1. Pankaj Tiwari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B Suresha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pankaj Tiwari.

Ethics declarations

Competing interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tiwari, P., Suresha, B. Moderating Role of Project Innovativeness on Project Flexibility, Project Risk, Project Performance, and Business Success in Financial Services. Glob J Flex Syst Manag 22, 179–196 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-021-00270-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-021-00270-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation