Artificial Intelligence and Agility-Based Model for Successful Project Implementation and Company Competitiveness
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Agile Work Environment for Successful Project Implementation
2.2. Agile Project Leadership
2.3. Agile Team Skills and Capabilities
2.4. Adopting AI Technologies in the Project
2.5. Successful Project Implementation and Company Competitiveness
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Data and Sample
3.2. Research Instrument
3.3. Statistical Analysis
4. Results
5. Discussion
5.1. Managerial Implications
- Enhancing the agile work environment: The research highlights the importance of fostering an agile work environment within the company. Companies should focus on creating a culture that encourages flexibility, adaptability, and collaboration among team members. This can be achieved by promoting open communication, empowering employees to make decisions, and supporting continuous learning and improvement.
- Developing agile leadership capabilities: The study emphasizes the role of agile leadership in successful project implementation. Companies should acquire the necessary skills and knowledge to effectively lead agile teams. This includes the ability to provide clear direction, empower team members, facilitate communication and collaboration, and embrace change and innovation.
- Building agile team skills and capabilities: The research underscores the significance of developing agile team skills and capabilities. Companies should invest in training and development programs that enhance team members’ ability to work collaboratively, adapt to changing circumstances, and leverage their diverse skills and expertise. Additionally, creating cross-functional teams and encouraging knowledge sharing can contribute to improved project outcomes.
- Leveraging AI technologies in projects: The study emphasizes the adoption of AI technologies in project implementation. Managers should explore and evaluate AI solutions that can automate repetitive tasks, enhance decision-making processes, and improve project efficiency and accuracy. Incorporating AI tools and techniques can streamline operations, reduce costs, and enable companies to leverage data-driven insights.
- Utilizing AI solutions in projects: The research highlights the benefits of utilizing AI solutions within projects. Managers should identify specific areas where AI can add value, such as predictive analytics, natural language processing, or machine learning, and incorporate these solutions into project workflows. Leveraging AI can lead to improved project outcomes, faster decision-making, and enhanced competitiveness.
5.2. Academic Implications
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Agile work environment (AWE) |
AWE1: We defined roles that provide clear guidance to employees of the expected outcomes and competencies required in the company. |
AWE2: We have created a work environment in which individuals and teams work optimally. |
AWE3: The training of new employees is tailored to the individual and the workplace |
AWE4: Employees are properly informed about the agile culture and goals of the company. |
AWE5: Employees are informed about the importance of development and rapid learning. |
AWE6: We encourage employees to make suggestions for improving the company’s performance. |
AWE7: Open communication is a part of the whole company (among employees, departments, project teams, management). |
Agile leadership (AL) |
AL1: We have changed our leadership style into a style that allows for an agile way of thinking. |
AL2: We have a project management office and other support structure for project management. |
AL3: We ensure that the employees who work on the project are optimally engaged and motivated. |
AL4: Our company includes internal training, seminars, meetings for the purpose of knowledge exchange, and solutions using artificial intelligence between employees, project teams, and leaders. |
AL5: The project team is properly informed about the goals that the company wants to achieve. |
AL6: We regularly monitor and anticipate changes in the environment. |
AL7: The activities of the company and employees are focused on the quality of products/services and customer satisfaction. |
AL8: We encourage the project team to examines different ways of solving problems in terms of learning opportunities and developing a new approach to the problem. |
Agile team skills and capabilities (ATSC) |
ATSC1: We organize for team members various forms of training to keep their skills up to date. |
ATSC2: We have a highly skilled and competent team members that are continuously adapting to changing needs. |
ATSC3: Team members work to ensure we are using best practice methods. |
ATSC4: Team members are continually working to improve cycle time, speed to market, customerresponsiveness, or other key performance indicators. |
ATSC5: Team members seek and give each other constructive feedback. |
ATSC6: When team members’ roles change, specific plans are implemented to help them assume their new responsibilities. |
ATSC7: Team members work with a great deal of flexibility so that we can adapt to changing needs. |
ATSC8: Team members are sure about what is expected of them and take pride in a job well done. |
ATSC9: Team members display high levels of cooperation and mutual support. |
Adopting AI technologies in project (AITP) |
AITP1: Our company uses program and portfolio structures for managing projects. |
AITP2: Our company has a digital transformation strategy, including AI adoption. |
AITP3: Our company uses AI technologies in projects for work design. |
AITP4: Our company uses AI technologies in projects to plan new tasks |
AITP5: Our company uses AI technologies in projects to create teams. |
Improving the work of leader in the project (IWLP) |
IWLP1: AI allows a leader to work effectively on project. |
IWLP2: AI releases the leader from routine managerial tasks. |
IWLP3: AI allows the leader to allocate more time for leading the project team. |
IWLP4: AI allows the leader to focus on the complex managerial tasks. |
IWLP5: AI allows the leader to run more projects. |
IWLP6: AI allows the leader to work remotely. |
Using AI solutions in a project (UAIS) |
UAIS1: We use chatbots (digital assistants) to improve the work on the project. |
UAIS2: We use predictive analytics tools to improve the work on the project. |
UAIS3: We use Robotic Process Automation to improve the work on the project. |
UAIS4: We use project scheduling software (which helps in planning, tracking, analysis of projects) to improve the work on the project. |
UAIS5: We use resource scheduling software (which helps to allocate resources such as equipment rooms, staff, and other resources) to improve the work on the project. |
Successful project implementation (SPI) |
SPI1: AI technologies improve communication with stakeholders. |
SPI2: AI technologies improve compliance, security, and project risk management. |
SPI3: AI technologies improve project performance and reporting. |
SPI4: AI technologies improve decision-making regarding project work/tasks. |
SPI5: AI technologies improve the resource utilization. |
SPI6: AI technologies provide accurate data and information related to project work. |
SPI7: AI technologies increase productivity by freeing up project managers to focus on more important decisions. |
SPI8: AI technologies reduce costs and delivery time. |
Company competitiveness (CC) |
CC1: The risk of employee error is reduced by AI |
CC2: AI accelerates and improves decision-making to achieve successful implementation. |
CC3: Compared to our key competitors, our company is growing faster. |
CC4: Compared to our key competitors, our company is more profitable. |
CC5: Compared to our key competitors, our company is more innovative. |
CC6: Compared to our major competitors, our capabilities and resources complement each other extremely well. |
References
- Josyula, S.S.; Suresh, M.; Raghu Raman, R. How to make intelligent automation projects agile? Identification of success factors and an assessment approach. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ciric Lalic, D.; Lalic, B.; Delić, M.; Gracanin, D.; Stefanovic, D. How project management approach impact project success? From traditional to agile. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2022, 15, 494–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Enholm, I.M.; Papagiannidis, E.; Mikalef, P.; Krogstie, J. Artificial Intelligence and Business Value: A Literature Review. Inf. Syst. Front. 2021, 24, 1709–1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gemino, A.; Reich, B.H.; Serrador, P.M. Agile, traditional, and hybrid approaches to project success: Is hybrid a poor second choice. Proj. Manag. J. 2020, 52, 161–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podgórska, M.; Pichlak, M. Analysis of project managers’ leadership competencies: Project success relation: What are the competencies of polish project leaders? Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2019, 12, 869–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manurung, A.H.; Kurniawan, R. Organizational agility: Do agile project management and networking capability require market orientation? Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2022, 15, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malik, N.; Tripathi, S.N.; Kar, A.K.; Gupta, S. Impact of artificial intelligence on employees working in industry 4.0 led organizations. Int. J. Manpow. 2021, 43, 334–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Upadhyay, N.; Upadhyay, S.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Theorizing artificial intelligence acceptance and digital entrepreneurship model. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2021, 28, 1138–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Work Programme. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/work-programme-2017_en (accessed on 12 March 2023).
- Gupta, S. Artificial Intelligence, Analytics and Agile: Transforming Project Management in the 21st Century. Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng. 2022, 11, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Enterprises in Vzhodna Slovenija with Lower Digital Intensity Index. Available online: https://www.stat.si/StatWeb/en/News/Index/9891 (accessed on 15 March 2023).
- Bag, S.; Pretorius, J.H.C.; Gupta, S.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Role of institutional pressures and resources in the adoption of big data analytics powered artificial intelligence, sustainable manufacturing practices and circular economy capabilities. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 163, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wamba-Taguimdje, S.-L.; Fosso Wamba, S.; Kala Kamdjoug, J.R.; Tchatchouang Wanko, C.E. Influence of artificial intelligence (AI) on firm performance: The business value of AI-based transformation projects. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2020, 26, 1893–1924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perucica, N.; Andjelkovic, K. Is the future of AI sustainable? A case study of the European Union. Transform. Gov. People Process Policy 2022, 16, 347–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borges, A.F.; Laurindo, F.J.; Spınola, M.M.; Gonçalves, R.F.; Mattos, C.A. The strategic use of artificial intelligence in the digital era: Systematic literature review and future research directions. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021, 57, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arefazar, Y.; Nazari, A.; Hafezi, M.R.; Maghool, S.A.H. Prioritizing agile project management strategies as a change management tool in construction projects. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2022, 22, 2788–2807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scholz, J.A.; Sieckmann, F.; Kohl, H. Implementation with agile project management approaches: Case study of an Industrie 4.0 Learning Factory in China. Procedia Manuf. 2020, 45, 234–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoddard, M.M.; Gillis, B.; Cohn, P. Agile project management in libraries: Creating collaborative, resilient, responsive organizations. J. Libr. Adm. 2019, 59, 492–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhamija, P.; Bag, S. Role of artificial intelligence in operations environment: A review and bibliometric analysis. TQM J. 2020, 32, 869–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.; Biswas, M.I.; Talukder, M.S. The role of artificial intelligence in effective business operations during COVID-19. Int. J. Emerg. Mark. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mikalef, P.; Gupta, M. Artificial Intelligence Capability: Conceptualization, measurement calibration, and empirical study on its impact on organizational creativity and firm performance. Inf. Manag. 2021, 58, 1–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niederman, F. Project management: Openings for disruption from AI and advanced analytics. Inf. Technol. People 2021, 34, 1570–1599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lahmann, M.; Keiser, P.; Stierli, A. Transformation Assurance: AI will Transform Project Management. Are You Ready? Available online: https://www.pwc.ch/en/insights/risk/transformation-assurance-ai-will-transform-project-management-are-you-ready.html (accessed on 10 April 2023).
- Ransbotham, S.; Kiron, D.; Gerbert, P.; Reeves, M. Reshaping Business with Artificial Intelligence. Available online: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/projects/reshaping-business-with-artificial-intelligence/ (accessed on 10 April 2023).
- Marnewick, A.L.; Marnewick, C. The ability of project managers to implement industry 4.0-related projects. IEEE Access 2019, 8, 314–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koch, J.; Schermuly, C.C. Who is attracted and why? How agile project management influences employee’s attraction and commitment. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2021, 14, 699–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balashova, E.S.; Gromova, E.A. Agile project management in telecommunications industry. Espacios 2017, 38, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Macheridis, N. Balancing authority and autonomy in higher education by implementing an agile project management approach. Tert. Educ. Manag. 2018, 24, 128–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Golgeci, I.; Bouguerra, A.; Rofcanin, Y. The human impact on the emergence of firm supply chain agility: A multilevel framework. Pers. Rev. 2020, 49, 733–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kahl, J.; de Klerk, S.; Ogulin, R. Agile strategies for middle managers. Manag. Decis. 2022, 60, 146–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nejatian, M.; Zarei, M.H.; Nejati, M.; Zanjirchi, S.M. A hybrid approach to achieve organizational agility: An empirical study of a food company. Benchmark. Int. J. 2018, 25, 201–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serrador, P.; Pinto, J.K. Does Agile work?—A quantitative analysis of agile project success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 1040–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akkaya, B.; Panait, M.; Apostu, S.A.; Kaya, Y. Agile Leadership and Perceived Career Success: The Mediating Role of Job Embeddedness. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayward, S. The Agile Leader: How to Create an Agile Business in the Digital Age; Kogan Page: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Ramirez-Mora, S.L.; Oktaba, H. Team maturity in agile software development: The impact on productivity. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution, Madrid, Spain, 23–29 September 2018; pp. 732–736. [Google Scholar]
- Peeters, T.; Van De Voorde, K.; Paauwe, J. The effects of working agile on team performance and engagement. Team Perform. Manag. 2022, 28, 61–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gren, L.; Ralph, P. What Makes Effective Leadership in Agile Software Development Teams? Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357987901_What_Makes_Effective_Leadership_in_Agile_Software_Development_Teams (accessed on 10 April 2023).
- Lindskog, C.; Netz, J. Balancing between stability and change in Agile teams. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2021, 14, 1529–1554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mani, S.; Mishra, M. Characteristics and ingredients of an agile work force—A strategy framework. Strateg. HR Rev. 2020, 19, 227–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shipman, J.P.; Tooey, M.J. Creating the nimble organization. In Transforming Medical Library Staff for the Twenty-First Century; Norton, M.J., Rupp, N., Eds.; Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham, MD, USA, 2017; pp. 43–54. [Google Scholar]
- Grass, A.; Backmann, J.; Hoegl, M. From empowerment dynamics to team adaptability: Exploring and conceptualizing the continuous agile team innovation process. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2020, 37, 324–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agarwal, P.; Swami, S.; Malhotra, S.K. Artificial Intelligence Adoption in the Post COVID-19 New-Normal and Role of Smart Technologies in Transforming Business: A Review. J. Sci. Technol. Policy Manag. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butt, A. Project Management through the lens of Artificial Intelligence—A Mixed-Methods Research into How AI Systems Can Support Project Managers to Become More Efficient in their Daily Work. Available online: http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/256311/256311.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2023).
- Salini, R.; Xu, B.; Lenngren, C.A. Application of artificial intelligence for optimization in pavement management. Int. J. Eng. Technol. Innov. 2015, 5, 189–197. [Google Scholar]
- Magaña Martínez, D.; Fernandez-Rodriguez, J.C. Artificial Intelligence Applied to Project Success: A Literature Review. Int. J. Interact. Multimed. Artif. Intell. 2015, 3, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Verint. New Verint Global Study Reveals Drivers Shaping the Future Hybrid Workforce. Available online: https://www.verint.com/press-room/2019-press-releases/new-verint-global-study-reveals-drivers-shaping-the-future-hybrid-workforce/ (accessed on 19 April 2023).
- Schreck, B.; Mallapur, S.; Damle, S.; James, N.J.; Vohra, S.; Prasad, R.; Veeramachaneni, K.; Doe, J. The AI Project Manager. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Big Data, Sorrento, Italy, 15–18 December 2022; Available online: https://www.featuretools.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/AIPM.pdf (accessed on 19 April 2023).
- Crews, C.J. What Machine Learning Can Learn from Foresight: A Human-Centered Approach: For machine learning–based forecast efforts to succeed, they must embrace lessons from corporate foresight to address human and organizational challenges. Res.-Technol. Manag. 2019, 62, 30–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wijayati, D.T.; Rahman, Z.; Fahrullah, A.; Rahman, M.F.W.; Arifah, I.D.C.; Kautsar, A. A study of artificial intelligence on employee performance and work engagement: The moderating role of change leadership. Int. J. Manp. 2022, 43, 486–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buschmeyer, K.; Hatfield, S.; Heine, I.; Jahn, S.; Markus, A.L. Expectation management in AI implementation projects: A case study. EuroMed J. Bus. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, H.M.; Yang, H.F. Network resource meets organizational agility: Creating an idiosyncratic competitive advantage for SMEs. Manag. Decis. 2019, 58, 58–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Denning, S. The ten stages of the Agile transformation journey. Strategy Leadersh. 2019, 47, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, R.D.; Rowland, C.A. Leadership development for managers in turbulent times. J. Manag. Dev. 2016, 35, 942–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garson, G.D. Partial Least Squares: Regression and Structural Equation Models; Statistical Associates Publishers: Asheboro, NC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Kock, N. WarpPLS User Manual, Version 6.0; ScriptWarp Systems: Laredo, TX, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Denning, S. How to make the whole organization “Agile”. Strategy Leadersh. 2016, 44, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pacagnella, A.C.; Da Silva, S.L.; Pacifico, O.; De Arruda Ignacio, P.S.; da Silva, A.L. Critical success factors for project manufacturing environments. Proj. Manag. J. 2019, 50, 243–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joslin, R.; Müller, R. The impact of project methodologies on project success in different project environments. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2016, 9, 364–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKinsey & Company. Global AI Survey: AI Proves its Worth, but Few Scale Impact. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/artificial-intelligence/global-ai-survey-ai-proves-its-worth-but-few-scale-impact (accessed on 17 April 2023).
- Auth, G.; Jokisch, O.; Dürk, C. Revisiting automated project management in the digital age—A survey of AI approaches. Online J. Appl. Knowl. Manag. 2019, 7, 27–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Construct | Item | Mean | Median | Standard Deviation | Variance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Agile work environment | AWE1 | 3.71 | 4.00 | 1.031 | 1.064 |
AWE2 | 4.02 | 4.00 | 0.868 | 0.754 | |
AWE3 | 3.62 | 4.00 | 1.092 | 1.192 | |
AWE4 | 3.83 | 4.00 | 0.950 | 0.903 | |
AWE5 | 3.94 | 4.00 | 0.873 | 0.762 | |
AWE6 | 3.67 | 4.00 | 0.914 | 0.835 | |
AWE7 | 3.59 | 4.00 | 0.989 | 0.978 | |
Agile leadership | AL1 | 4.24 | 4.00 | 0.777 | 0.604 |
AL2 | 3.52 | 4.00 | 1.195 | 1.428 | |
AL3 | 3.63 | 4.00 | 1.010 | 1.021 | |
AL4 | 3.83 | 4.00 | 1.161 | 1.349 | |
AL5 | 4.10 | 4.00 | 0.889 | 0.791 | |
AL6 | 3.61 | 4.00 | 0.985 | 0.970 | |
AL7 | 3.74 | 4.00 | 0.897 | 0.805 | |
AL8 | 3.65 | 4.00 | 1.005 | 1.010 | |
Agile team skills and capabilities | ATSC1 | 3.92 | 4.00 | 0.736 | 0.541 |
ATSC2 | 4.28 | 4.00 | 0.615 | 0.379 | |
ATSC3 | 3.99 | 4.00 | 1.015 | 1.030 | |
ATSC4 | 3.97 | 4.00 | 0.768 | 0.590 | |
ATSC5 | 3.59 | 4.00 | 0.955 | 0.912 | |
ATSC6 | 3.64 | 4.00 | 1.020 | 1.040 | |
ATSC7 | 3.70 | 4.00 | 0.963 | 0.928 | |
ATSC8 | 3.76 | 4.00 | 0.777 | 0.604 | |
ATSC9 | 3.89 | 4.00 | 0.887 | 0.786 | |
Adopting AI technologies in project | AITP1 | 4.13 | 4.00 | 0.883 | 0.779 |
AITP2 | 4.26 | 4.00 | 0.775 | 0.601 | |
AITP3 | 3.68 | 4.00 | 1.102 | 1.215 | |
AITP4 | 3.54 | 4.00 | 0.804 | 0.646 | |
AITP5 | 3.67 | 4.00 | 1.033 | 1.066 | |
Improving the work of leader in the project | IWLP1 | 4.01 | 4.00 | 0.867 | 0.752 |
IWLP2 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 0.937 | 0.878 | |
IWLP3 | 3.96 | 4.00 | 0.884 | 0.782 | |
IWLP4 | 3.94 | 4.00 | 0.968 | 0.936 | |
IWLP5 | 3.86 | 4.00 | 0.963 | 0.926 | |
IWLP6 | 3.80 | 4.00 | 0.900 | 0.810 | |
Using AI solutions in a project | UAIS1 | 3.99 | 4.00 | 0.837 | 0.701 |
UAIS2 | 4.10 | 4.00 | 0.776 | 0.602 | |
UAIS3 | 3.94 | 4.00 | 0.813 | 0.661 | |
UAIS4 | 4.40 | 4.00 | 0.618 | 0.382 | |
UAIS5 | 3.83 | 4.00 | 1.031 | 1.062 | |
Successful project implementation | SPI1 | 3.82 | 4.00 | 0.896 | 0.803 |
SPI2 | 3.83 | 4.00 | 0.874 | 0.763 | |
SPI3 | 3.86 | 4.00 | 0.930 | 0.864 | |
SPI4 | 3.85 | 4.00 | 0.889 | 0.791 | |
SPI5 | 3.81 | 4.00 | 0.904 | 0.817 | |
SPI6 | 3.84 | 4.00 | 0.989 | 0.978 | |
SPI7 | 3.92 | 4.00 | 0.956 | 0.913 | |
SPI8 | 3.80 | 4.00 | 0.888 | 0.789 | |
Company competitiveness | CC1 | 3.84 | 4.00 | 1.176 | 1.383 |
CC2 | 4.24 | 4.00 | 0.791 | 0.626 | |
CC3 | 3.75 | 4.00 | 1.027 | 1.055 | |
CC4 | 4.23 | 4.00 | 0.833 | 0.693 | |
CC5 | 4.10 | 4.00 | 0.912 | 0.831 | |
CC6 | 3.74 | 4.00 | 1.137 | 1.292 |
Construct | Item | Communalities | Loadings | Cronbach’s Alpha |
---|---|---|---|---|
Agile work environment | AWE1 | 0.836 | 0.914 | 0.923 |
AWE2 | 0.865 | 0.930 | ||
AWE3 | 0.797 | 0.893 | ||
AWE4 | 0.860 | 0.924 | ||
AWE5 | 0.829 | 0.910 | ||
AWE6 | 0.762 | 0.879 | ||
AWE7 | 0.786 | 0.887 | ||
Agile leadership | AL1 | 0.806 | 0.898 | 0.942 |
AL2 | 0.739 | 0.853 | ||
AL3 | 0.746 | 0.865 | ||
AL4 | 0.786 | 0.887 | ||
AL5 | 0.804 | 0.895 | ||
AL6 | 0.741 | 0.860 | ||
AL7 | 0.781 | 0.883 | ||
AL8 | 0.763 | 0.874 | ||
Agile team skills and capabilities | ATSC1 | 0.775 | 0.882 | 0.878 |
ATSC2 | 0.792 | 0.893 | ||
ATSC3 | 0.788 | 0.890 | ||
ATSC4 | 0.781 | 0.886 | ||
ATSC5 | 0.665 | 0.815 | ||
ATSC6 | 0.731 | 0.855 | ||
ATSC7 | 0.713 | 0.836 | ||
ATSC8 | 0.651 | 0.807 | ||
ATSC9 | 0.740 | 0.861 | ||
Adopting AI technologies in project | AITP1 | 0.732 | 0.857 | 0.907 |
AITP2 | 0.738 | 0.860 | ||
AITP3 | 0.729 | 0.854 | ||
AITP4 | 0.653 | 0.827 | ||
AITP5 | 0.721 | 0.849 | ||
Improving the work of leader in the project | IWLP1 | 0.785 | 0.886 | 0.915 |
IWLP2 | 0.772 | 0.879 | ||
IWLP3 | 0.747 | 0.866 | ||
IWLP4 | 0.760 | 0.872 | ||
IWLP5 | 0.729 | 0.851 | ||
IWLP6 | 0.699 | 0.834 | ||
Using AI solutions in a project | UAIS1 | 0.712 | 0.847 | 0.886 |
UAIS2 | 0.733 | 0.856 | ||
UAIS3 | 0.682 | 0.826 | ||
UAIS4 | 0.738 | 0.859 | ||
UAIS5 | 0.648 | 0.805 | ||
Successful project implementation | SPI1 | 0.794 | 0.891 | 0.932 |
SPI2 | 0.800 | 0.894 | ||
SPI3 | 0.817 | 0.904 | ||
SPI4 | 0.808 | 0.899 | ||
SPI5 | 0.789 | 0.888 | ||
SPI6 | 0.803 | 0.896 | ||
SPI7 | 0.842 | 0.918 | ||
SPI8 | 0.724 | 0.851 | ||
Company competitiveness | CC1 | 0.722 | 0.849 | 0.956 |
CC2 | 0.881 | 0.939 | ||
CC3 | 0.808 | 0.899 | ||
CC4 | 0.880 | 0.938 | ||
CC5 | 0.848 | 0.921 | ||
CC6 | 0.804 | 0.897 |
Quality Indicators | Criterion of Quality Indicators | Calculated Values of Indicators of Model |
---|---|---|
Average path coefficient (APC) | p < 0.05 | 0.340, p < 0.001 |
Average R-squared (ARS) | p < 0.05 | 0.527, p < 0.001 |
Average adjusted R-squared (AARS) | p < 0.05 | 0.525, p < 0.001 |
Average block variance inflation factor (AVIF) | AVIF < 5.0 | 1.269 |
Average full collinearity VIF (AFVIF) | AFVIF < 5.0 | 3.482 |
Goodness-of-fit (GoF) | GoF ≥ 0.1 (low) GoF ≥ 0.25 (medium) GoF ≥ 0.36 (high) | 0.609 |
Simpson’s paradox ratio (SPR) | SPR ≥ 0.7, ideally = 1 | 1.000 |
R-squared contribution ratio (RSCR) | RSCR ≥ 0.9, ideally = 1 | 1.000 |
Statistical suppression ratio (SSR) | SSR ≥ 0.7 | 1.000 |
Nonlinear causality direction ratio (NLBCD) | NLBCD ≥ 0.7 | 1.000 |
Constructs | CR | AVE | R2 | Adj. R2 | Q2 | VIF |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Agile work environment | 0.963 | 0.784 | (-) | (-) | (-) | 2.756 |
Agile leadership | 0.978 | 0.793 | (-) | (-) | (-) | 1.930 |
Agile team skills and capabilities | 0.846 | 0.747 | (-) | (-) | (-) | 1.142 |
Improving the work of leader in the project | 0.885 | 0.716 | 0.494 | 0.493 | 0.430 | 3.294 |
Adopting AI technologies in project | 0.872 | 0.608 | (-) | (-) | (-) | 2.287 |
Using AI solutions in a project | 0.846 | 0.667 | 0.548 | 0.547 | 0.560 | 2.483 |
Successful project implementation | 0.971 | 0.865 | 0.468 | 0.462 | 0.483 | 1.907 |
Company competitiveness | 0.897 | 0.714 | 0.599 | 0.598 | 0.570 | 2.478 |
Hypothesized Path | Path Coefficient (γ) | Sig. | Effect Size (ƒ2) | Standard Error | Link Direction | Shape of Link |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AWE→SPI | 0.710 | p < 0.001 | 0.473 | 0.042 | Positive | Nonlinear |
AL→SPI | 0.745 | p < 0.001 | 0.516 | 0.042 | ||
ATSC→SPI | 0.548 | p < 0.001 | 0.362 | 0.041 | ||
IWLP→SPI | 0.673 | p < 0.01 | 0.369 | 0.041 | ||
AITP→SPI | 0.702 | p < 0.01 | 0.458 | 0.041 | ||
UAIS→SPI | 0.689 | p < 0.01 | 0.376 | 0.043 | ||
AITP→UAIS | 0.564 | p < 0.001 | 0.383 | 0.042 | ||
AITP→IWLP | 0.558 | p < 0.01 | 0.357 | 0.042 | ||
SPI→CC | 0.774 | p < 0.01 | 0.538 | 0.041 |
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. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Tominc, P.; Oreški, D.; Rožman, M. Artificial Intelligence and Agility-Based Model for Successful Project Implementation and Company Competitiveness. Information 2023, 14, 337. https://doi.org/10.3390/info14060337
Tominc P, Oreški D, Rožman M. Artificial Intelligence and Agility-Based Model for Successful Project Implementation and Company Competitiveness. Information. 2023; 14(6):337. https://doi.org/10.3390/info14060337
Chicago/Turabian StyleTominc, Polona, Dijana Oreški, and Maja Rožman. 2023. "Artificial Intelligence and Agility-Based Model for Successful Project Implementation and Company Competitiveness" Information 14, no. 6: 337. https://doi.org/10.3390/info14060337
APA StyleTominc, P., Oreški, D., & Rožman, M. (2023). Artificial Intelligence and Agility-Based Model for Successful Project Implementation and Company Competitiveness. Information, 14(6), 337. https://doi.org/10.3390/info14060337