Submitted:
04 May 2025
Posted:
07 May 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Theoretical Support
2.1. Service Quality and SERVQUAL Model
2.2. Mega Construction Projects in Telecommunications
2.3. GAI Technology Application in Telecommunications
2.4. Human-AI Integration in Digital Transformation
3. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Development
3.1. Service Quality and Project Success
3.2. Moderating Effect of GAI Technology Application
3.3. Moderating Effect of Human-AI Integration
4. Methodology
4.1. Sample Selection and Data Sources
4.2. Model Design and Definition of Variables
4.2.1. Dependent Variable: Mega Construction Project Success
4.2.2. Independent Variable: Service Quality
4.2.3. Moderating Variables
4.2.4. Control Variables
4.3. Analytical Approaches
5. Results and Findings
5.1. Descriptive Statistics
5.2. Measurement Model Assessment
5.3. Structural Model and Hypothesis Testing
5.4. Artificial Neural Network Analysis
5.5. Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis
5.6. Model Fit Analysis
6. Discussion and Implications of the Study
6.1. Theoretical Implications
6.2. Practical Implications
6.3. Policy Recommendations
- Develop industry standards for service quality in mega construction projects: Industry associations should develop and promote standards for service quality in telecommunications mega construction projects, incorporating the SERVQUAL dimensions identified in this study. These standards can guide firms in enhancing service quality and provide benchmarks for performance evaluation.
- Establish regulatory frameworks for GAI technology application: Regulatory bodies should develop frameworks that facilitate responsible GAI technology application in the telecommunications industry. These frameworks should address data privacy, security, algorithmic transparency, and ethical considerations while enabling innovation and efficiency improvements.
- Promote skills development for Human-AI integration: Government agencies and industry associations should invest in education and training programs that develop the skills required for effective Human-AI integration. These programs should focus on both technical skills for working with AI systems and soft skills for collaborative problem-solving, critical thinking, and ethical decision-making.
- Incentivize digital transformation in the telecommunications industry: Government policies should provide incentives for telecommunications firms to invest in digital transformation initiatives, including GAI technology application and Human-AI integration. These incentives can include tax benefits, grants, subsidies, and preferential procurement policies for digitally advanced firms.
- Facilitate knowledge sharing and collaboration: Industry associations and government agencies should establish platforms for knowledge sharing and collaboration among telecommunications firms, technology providers, research institutions, and other stakeholders. These platforms can facilitate the exchange of best practices, lessons learned, and innovative approaches to enhancing service quality through digital technologies.
7. Conclusions
References
- Anderson, J. C. , & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423. [CrossRef]
- Chen, H. , & Liu, Y. (2024). Generative AI technologies in telecommunications: Applications, challenges, and future directions. Telecommunications Policy, 48(1), 102-118. [CrossRef]
- Chen, H. , Wang, L., & Zhang, J. (2023). Critical success factors for mega construction projects: Evidence from the Chinese telecommunications industry. International Journal of Project Management, 41(2), 156-172. [CrossRef]
- Chen, X. , Zhang, Y., & Liu, Z. (2024). Digital transformation in the telecommunications industry: The role of artificial intelligence and human-technology collaboration. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 188, 122289. [CrossRef]
- Cui, J. (2024). Exploring the Impact of Generative AI on Cross-Border E-Commerce Brand Building in Chinese Tianjin's Manufacturing Sector. arXiv:2411.17700.
- Cui, J. (2024). Exploring Cultural Elements in Modern Packaging Design and Their Emotional Impact on Consumers. Available at SSRN 5038426.
- Yue, H. , Cui, J., Zhao, X., Liu, Y., Zhang, H., & Wang, M. (2024). Study on the sports biomechanics prediction, sport biofluids and assessment of college students’ mental health status transport based on artificial neural network and expert system. Molecular & Cellular Biomechanics, 21(1), 256-256.
- Flyvbjerg, B. (2021). Top ten behavioral biases in megaproject management. Project Management Journal, 52(6), 531-547. [CrossRef]
- Li, H. , & Zhang, X. (2023). Service quality in construction projects: An empirical investigation of telecommunications infrastructure development. Construction Management and Economics, 41(5), 489-506. [CrossRef]
- Li, J. , Chen, H., & Wang, Z. (2023). Human-AI integration in digital organizations: Conceptualization, antecedents, and outcomes. Journal of Management Information Systems, 40(1), 137-165. [CrossRef]
- Liu, M. , & Chen, Y. (2024). Success factors for mega construction projects in the era of digital transformation: A systematic review. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 31(2), 823-845. [CrossRef]
- Liu, X. , & Zhang, Y. (2023). The impact of human-AI integration on service quality and operational efficiency in telecommunications firms. International Journal of Production Economics, 255, 108645. [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z. , Wang, Y., & Chen, H. (2023). Artificial intelligence applications in telecommunications: A review and research agenda. Telecommunications Systems, 82(2), 231-249. [CrossRef]
- Cui, J. (2024). Does digital strategy, organizational agility, digital lead-ership promote DT? A study of digital strategy, organiza-tional agility, digital leadership affects corporate DT in Chinese technological firms. Journal of Integrated Social Sciences and Humanities.
- Cui, J. (2025). Exploring the impact of digital leadership and green digital innovation on corporate digital transformation. Journal of Current Social Issues Studies, 2(4), 215-220.
- Panda, S. , & Das, S. (2021). Service quality and customer satisfaction in the telecommunications sector: A systematic review and research agenda. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 31(5), 724-756. [CrossRef]
- Parasuraman, A. , Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40.
- Wang, L. , Chen, H., & Zhang, J. (2023). GAI applications in large-scale infrastructure development: A case study of 5G network deployment in China. Journal of Information Technology in Construction, 28, 256-273. [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y. , Liu, Z., & Li, H. (2023). Mega construction projects in the Chinese telecommunications industry: Challenges and opportunities in the digital era. International Journal of Project Management, 41(4), 421-437. [CrossRef]
- Wu, G. , & Zhao, X. (2021). Service quality in construction projects: Measurement, antecedents, and consequences. Journal of Management in Engineering, 37(1), 04020104. [CrossRef]
- Wu, X. , Chen, Y., & Wang, Z. (2023). Generative AI in telecommunications: Use cases, benefits, and implementation challenges. IEEE Communications Magazine, 61(5), 68-74. [CrossRef]
- Yang, H. , Li, J., & Chen, X. (2022). Service quality, customer satisfaction, and loyalty in Chinese telecommunications firms: A SERVQUAL-based study. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 33(5-6), 612-633. [CrossRef]
- Zeithaml, V. A. , Bitner, M. J., & Gremler, D. D. (2018). Services marketing: Integrating customer focus across the firm (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
- Zhang, J. , & Wang, L. (2022). Mega construction projects in the telecommunications industry: Definitions, characteristics, and research directions. Project Management Journal, 53(4), 378-394. [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J. , & Wang, L. (2023). Human-AI collaboration in digital organizations: Theoretical perspectives and research opportunities. MIS Quarterly, 47(2), 895-926. [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y. , Liu, X., & Chen, H. (2024). Generative AI applications in telecommunications project management: Empirical evidence and future directions. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71(1), 143-159. [CrossRef]
| Characteristic | Category | Frequency | Percentage |
| Firm Size | Large (>1000 employees) | 153 | 55.0% |
| Medium (100-1000 employees) | 97 | 34.9% | |
| Small (<100 employees) | 28 | 10.1% | |
| Ownership | State-owned | 142 | 51.1% |
| Private | 98 | 35.3% | |
| Foreign/Joint Venture | 38 | 13.7% | |
| Project Type | Network Infrastructure | 152 | 54.7% |
| Data Centers | 76 | 27.3% | |
| Smart City Solutions | 50 | 18.0% | |
| Project Budget | 100-500 million RMB | 125 | 45.0% |
| 501-1000 million RMB | 97 | 34.9% | |
| >1000 million RMB | 56 | 20.1% |
| Variable | Dimension | Item Code | Measurement Item |
| Service Quality | Tangibles (TAN) | TAN1 | The firm uses modern equipment and technology |
| TAN2 | Physical facilities are visually appealing | ||
| TAN3 | Staff members appear professional | ||
| TAN4 | Materials associated with service are visually appealing | ||
| Reliability (REL) | REL1 | Services are provided as promised | |
| REL2 | The firm is dependable in handling service problems | ||
| REL3 | Services are performed right the first time | ||
| REL4 | Services are provided at the promised time | ||
| Responsiveness (RES) | RES1 | Customers are informed when services will be performed | |
| RES2 | Staff provide prompt service to customers | ||
| RES3 | Staff are always willing to help customers | ||
| RES4 | Staff are never too busy to respond to customer requests | ||
| Assurance (ASS) | ASS1 | Staff behavior instills confidence in customers | |
| ASS2 | Customers feel safe in their transactions | ||
| ASS3 | Staff are consistently courteous | ||
| ASS4 | Staff have the knowledge to answer customer questions | ||
| Empathy (EMP) | EMP1 | The firm gives customers individual attention | |
| EMP2 | Operating hours are convenient for customers | ||
| EMP3 | Staff give customers personal attention | ||
| EMP4 | The firm has the customers' best interests at heart | ||
| Project Success | Schedule Performance (SP) | SP1 | The project was completed on schedule |
| SP2 | The project experienced minimal schedule delays | ||
| SP3 | The project schedule management was effective | ||
| Cost Performance (CP) | CP1 | The project was completed within budget | |
| CP2 | The project experienced minimal cost overruns | ||
| CP3 | The project cost management was effective | ||
| Quality Performance (QP) | QP1 | The project met technical specifications | |
| QP2 | The project delivered high-quality outputs | ||
| QP3 | The project quality management was effective | ||
| Stakeholder Satisfaction (SS) | SS1 | Stakeholders were satisfied with project outcomes | |
| SS2 | The project met stakeholder expectations | ||
| SS3 | Stakeholders would recommend the firm for future projects | ||
| GAI Technology Application | GAI1 | GAI is used for project planning and design | |
| GAI2 | GAI is used for resource allocation and optimization | ||
| GAI3 | GAI is used for risk assessment and management | ||
| GAI4 | GAI is used for quality control and monitoring | ||
| GAI5 | GAI is used for customer service and support | ||
| GAI6 | GAI is integrated into core project management processes | ||
| Human-AI Integration | HAI1 | Human workers and AI systems collaborate effectively | |
| HAI2 | Roles and responsibilities between humans and AI are clearly defined | ||
| HAI3 | Organizational structures support Human-AI collaboration | ||
| HAI4 | Governance mechanisms for Human-AI integration are established | ||
| HAI5 | Staff are trained to work effectively with AI systems | ||
| HAI6 | The firm culture supports Human-AI integration | ||
| HAI7 | Leadership actively promotes Human-AI integration |
| Variable | Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 1. Tangibles | 5.24 | 0.93 | 1.00 | ||||||||||
| 2. Reliability | 5.56 | 0.87 | 0.42* | 1.00 | |||||||||
| 3. Responsiveness | 5.12 | 0.97 | 0.38* | 0.45* | 1.00 | ||||||||
| 4. Assurance | 5.34 | 0.92 | 0.36* | 0.48* | 0.43* | 1.00 | |||||||
| 5. Empathy | 4.83 | 1.05 | 0.33* | 0.37* | 0.46* | 0.40* | 1.00 | ||||||
| 6. Schedule Performance | 4.92 | 1.12 | 0.35* | 0.47* | 0.42* | 0.39* | 0.31* | 1.00 | |||||
| 7. Cost Performance | 5.03 | 1.08 | 0.33* | 0.49* | 0.38* | 0.36* | 0.29* | 0.53* | 1.00 | ||||
| 8. Quality Performance | 5.38 | 0.95 | 0.38* | 0.52* | 0.43* | 0.45* | 0.34* | 0.48* | 0.52* | 1.00 | |||
| 9. Stakeholder Satisfaction | 5.21 | 0.98 | 0.40* | 0.55* | 0.46* | 0.48* | 0.42* | 0.51* | 0.49* | 0.58* | 1.00 | ||
| 10. GAI Technology Application | 4.72 | 1.15 | 0.42* | 0.38* | 0.36* | 0.41* | 0.33* | 0.44* | 0.42* | 0.46* | 0.48* | 1.00 | |
| 11. Human-AI Integration | 4.58 | 1.21 | 0.39* | 0.36* | 0.34* | 0.37* | 0.35* | 0.41* | 0.39* | 0.43* | 0.45* | 0.56* | 1.00 |
| Construct | Item | Factor Loading | Cronbach's Alpha | CR | AVE |
| Tangibles | TAN1 | 0.82 | 0.86 | 0.88 | 0.65 |
| TAN2 | 0.78 | ||||
| TAN3 | 0.84 | ||||
| TAN4 | 0.79 | ||||
| Reliability | REL1 | 0.85 | 0.89 | 0.91 | 0.72 |
| REL2 | 0.87 | ||||
| REL3 | 0.83 | ||||
| REL4 | 0.84 | ||||
| Responsiveness | RES1 | 0.81 | 0.88 | 0.90 | 0.68 |
| RES2 | 0.83 | ||||
| RES3 | 0.86 | ||||
| RES4 | 0.80 | ||||
| Assurance | ASS1 | 0.84 | 0.87 | 0.89 | 0.67 |
| ASS2 | 0.82 | ||||
| ASS3 | 0.78 | ||||
| ASS4 | 0.83 | ||||
| Empathy | EMP1 | 0.79 | 0.85 | 0.87 | 0.64 |
| EMP2 | 0.77 | ||||
| EMP3 | 0.84 | ||||
| EMP4 | 0.81 | ||||
| Schedule Performance | SP1 | 0.87 | 0.88 | 0.90 | 0.74 |
| SP2 | 0.85 | ||||
| SP3 | 0.86 | ||||
| Cost Performance | CP1 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.91 | 0.76 |
| CP2 | 0.86 | ||||
| CP3 | 0.87 | ||||
| Quality Performance | QP1 | 0.85 | 0.87 | 0.89 | 0.73 |
| QP2 | 0.88 | ||||
| QP3 | 0.84 | ||||
| Stakeholder Satisfaction | SS1 | 0.86 | 0.88 | 0.90 | 0.75 |
| SS2 | 0.88 | ||||
| SS3 | 0.85 | ||||
| GAI Technology Application | GAI1 | 0.83 | 0.91 | 0.93 | 0.68 |
| GAI2 | 0.84 | ||||
| GAI3 | 0.82 | ||||
| GAI4 | 0.81 | ||||
| GAI5 | 0.85 | ||||
| GAI6 | 0.79 | ||||
| Human-AI Integration | HAI1 | 0.82 | 0.92 | 0.94 | 0.69 |
| HAI2 | 0.83 | ||||
| HAI3 | 0.85 | ||||
| HAI4 | 0.80 | ||||
| HAI5 | 0.82 | ||||
| HAI6 | 0.84 | ||||
| HAI7 | 0.86 |
| Fit Index | Value | Threshold | Result |
| χ²/df | 2.46 | <3.00 | Good fit |
| CFI | 0.93 | >0.90 | Good fit |
| TLI | 0.92 | >0.90 | Good fit |
| RMSEA | 0.059 | <0.08 | Good fit |
| SRMR | 0.052 | <0.08 | Good fit |
| Hypothesis | Path | Path Coefficient | t-value | p-value | Result |
| H1 | Service Quality → Project Success | 0.485 | 7.83 | <0.001 | Supported |
| H2 | Service Quality × GAI Technology Application → Project Success | 0.172 | 3.45 | <0.01 | Supported |
| H3 | Service Quality × Human-AI Integration → Project Success | 0.156 | 3.28 | <0.01 | Supported |
| Input Variable | Normalized Importance (%) |
| Reliability | 100.0 |
| Assurance | 87.6 |
| Responsiveness | 82.3 |
| Tangibles | 75.8 |
| GAI Technology Application | 72.5 |
| Human-AI Integration | 68.9 |
| Empathy | 64.2 |
| Variable | Full Membership (0.95) | Crossover Point (0.5) | Full Non-membership (0.05) |
| Tangibles | 6.5 | 5.0 | 3.5 |
| Reliability | 6.5 | 5.5 | 4.5 |
| Responsiveness | 6.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 |
| Assurance | 6.5 | 5.3 | 4.0 |
| Empathy | 6.0 | 4.8 | 3.5 |
| GAI Technology Application | 6.0 | 4.7 | 3.5 |
| Human-AI Integration | 6.0 | 4.6 | 3.0 |
| Project Success | 6.5 | 5.0 | 3.5 |
| Configuration | TAN | REL | RES | ASS | EMP | GAI | HAI | Raw Coverage | Unique Coverage | Consistency |
| 1 | ● | ● | ● | ● | ○ | ● | ● | 0.386 | 0.098 | 0.921 |
| 2 | ● | ● | ○ | ● | ● | ● | ○ | 0.342 | 0.075 | 0.908 |
| 3 | ○ | ● | ● | ● | ○ | ● | ● | 0.325 | 0.064 | 0.895 |
| 4 | ● | ● | ● | ○ | ● | ○ | ● | 0.298 | 0.052 | 0.882 |
| 5 | ● | ● | ○ | ● | ○ | ● | ● | 0.287 | 0.046 | 0.876 |
| Fit Index | Value | Threshold | Interpretation |
| R² | 0.583 | - | Model explains 58.3% of variance in project success |
| Adjusted R² | 0.575 | - | Good explanatory power after adjustment for variables |
| F-value | 48.63 | - | Significant at p < 0.001 |
| Q² | 0.492 | >0 | Good predictive relevance |
| GoF | 0.615 | >0.36 | Large effect size and good overall fit |
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. |
© 2025 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).