Knowledge Sharing Willingness and Leakage Risk: An Evolutional Game Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper “Knowledge Sharing Willingness and Leakage Risk: An Evolutional Game Model” deals with an original and interesting topic. The manuscript presents various limitations that should be improved. My suggestions are the following: The authors should clarify how the review process has been conducted as well as the papers selected to identify the build the theoretical background. This guarantees that the authors have not overlooked some relevant papers in the analysis of the theoretical background, as explained in the following point. In addition, considering the introduction, and particularly concerning that in the transition to the knowledge-based economy accelerates intangible assets represented by technology, knowledge, and information for creating sustainable competitive advantages for the firms, it is not possible to neglect crucial role of the alignment between enterprise knowledge and technologies in the context of SCM, and the theoretical background related to these issues. Therefore, I suggest to include the following contributions to improve the theoretical background: Bagnoli and Giachetti. Aligning knowledge strategy and competitive strategy in small firms (2015) Journal of Business Economics and Management, 16 (3), pp. 571-598; Centobelli et al. How to deal with knowledge management misalignment: a taxonomy based on a 3D fuzzy methodology (2018) Journal of Knowledge Management, 22 (3), 538-566; Martins. Relational capabilities to leverage new knowledge: Managing directors’ perceptions in UK and Portugal old industrial regions (2016) Learning Organization, 23 (6), pp. 398-414. Which are the implications for policy makers? For policy makers, the proposed results should be of help in identifying specific policies to support the competitiveness of local systems and individual companies suggesting that the development of particular capabilities can contribute simultaneously to different types of performance of individual firms, supply chains and local systems.
Author Response
Thank you for the valuable comments that have been a great help to us in improving our manuscript. For convenience, we reproduce each of your comments below followed in turn by our responses. Explanations and revisions are set out in red.
Point 1:The authors should clarify how the review process has been conducted as well as the papers selected to identify the build the theoretical background. This guarantees that the authors have not overlooked some relevant papers in the analysis of the theoretical background, as explained in the following point.
Response 1: Thanks for the important point regarding the development of our theoretical framework in the section of theoretical background. Here we would like to provide a rationale for the structure of literature review/theoretical background section. We aim to achieve three goals in this section and they are: 1) to define the central concepts – knowledge, and knowledge sharing – and their application in the supply chain context; 2) to draw relevant influencing factors for the game modelling analysis; and 3) to introduce the game theory as methodological approach to analyse knowledge sharing in supply chain relationships.
Our literature review is organised to achieve these three goals. First, we defined the core concepts of knowledge and knowledge sharing by reviewing relevant literature, and we discussed how knowledge sharing is important in the supply chain context. Second, using the transaction cost theory and social exchange theory as the theoretical lenses, we identified a number of factors that are important to influence individual firm’s behaviour in sharing knowledge with its supply chain partners. Third, following the game theory, we developed an evolutionary game model as the analytic tool to address the research gap identified in our Introduction section.
We hope that our explanation here is able to provide a rationale for our literature review.
Point 2:In addition, considering the introduction, and particularly concerning that in the transition to the knowledge-based economy accelerates intangible assets represented by technology, knowledge, and information for creating sustainable competitive advantages for the firms, it is not possible to neglect crucial role of the alignment between enterprise knowledge and technologies in the context of SCM, and the theoretical background related to these issues.
Response 2: Thanks for the important point raised by the reviewer regarding knowledge sharing for the knowledge-based economy. Following the review comments here, we made relevant changes in our Introduction section. Our changes include: 1) following knowledge-based view, we emphasised importance of knowledge in the knowledge-based economy, especially for in the context of supply chain networks. 2) we added some arguments regarding significance of knowledge sharing and knowledge alignment between supply chain partners.
Point 3:Therefore, I suggest to include the following contributions to improve the theoretical background:
Bagnoli and Giachetti. Aligning knowledge strategy and competitive strategy in small firms (2015) Journal of Business Economics and Management, 16 (3), pp. 571-598;
Centobelli et al. How to deal with knowledge management misalignment: a taxonomy based on a 3D fuzzy methodology (2018) Journal of Knowledge Management, 22 (3), 538-566;
Martins. Relational capabilities to leverage new knowledge: Managing directors’ perceptions in UK and Portugal old industrial regions (2016) Learning Organization, 23 (6), pp. 398-414.
Response 3: Many thanks for providing the useful references. In our revisions, two of the recommended references(the first and the second) have been cited in the manuscript.
We have taken a close look at the second reference and decided that we do not add it into our manuscript. Our decision is based on two factors: 1) it seems to us that the relevance of the second reference to our manuscript is not strong; and 2) as the length of the manuscript text, together with the already cited references, is a bit long. Adding too many references will make the paper too long.
Point 4:Which are the implications for policy makers? For policy makers, the proposed results should be of help in identifying specific policies to support the competitiveness of local systems and individual companies suggesting that the development of particular capabilities can contribute simultaneously to different types of performance of individual firms, supply chains and local systems.
Response 4: Thanks for raising this important point regarding implications for policy makers. Following this important point and based on our modelling results, we developed implications for policy makers. First, in terms of governance framework in regulating knowledge sharing, we suggested that an improvement in the contractual governance structure would be helpful to reduce risk of leaking confidential knowledge. In this regard, improving incentive and penalty mechanisms would be able to prevent "free riding" behaviour. Second, in terms of broad legal environment, we suggested that establishing a better legal environment at the whole society level would be helpful to effectively protect legal rights of intellectual property, including confidential knowledge.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper “Knowledge Sharing Willingness and Leakage Risk: An Evolutional Game Model” reveal how a long term strategy for supply chain partners towards knowledge sharing is determined. It describes the influence of competition or rivalry side of coopetition relationship. In my opinion the content of the paper is adequate for the purposes of the journal.
Title: The title of the paper is informative. It includes important terms and the message of the article.
Keywords: Keywords are well chosen.
Abstract: The abstract describes the context and provide a general picture of the methodological approach. The main outcomes are also described.
Introduction and theoretical background: Introduction defines the focus and explains the structure of the text. Literature review prepares the reader to understand the research part of the article. A summary table comparing the contributions could support the explanation. I advise to include some articles focusing on human resource problems in supply chain (see Bányai et al. 2018 DOI: 10.3390/su10103692) and complexity of supply chain solutions (see Bányai 2015 DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.01.341) if suitable.
Model Descriptions and Assumptions: Model and assumptions are extensive discussed. I suggest you to explain why the saddle point D is inversely proportional to the area of ADCB.
Analysis results and discussion: The numerical example validates the mathematical model. Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed. The key functionality has been explained but the computer application for implementation is not revealed. The details of software engineering part would be interesting for anyone aiming to replicate the implementation. Pseudo-code would be useful, if suitable.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Thank you for the valuable comments and suggestions which have been a great help to us in improving our manuscript. For convenience, we reproduce each of your comments below followed in turn by our responses. Explanations and revisions are set out in red.
Point 1:Introduction defines the focus and explains the structure of the text. Literature review prepares the reader to understand the research part of the article. A summary table comparing the contributions could support the explanation. I advise to include some articles focusing on human resource problems in supply chain (see Bányai et al. 2018 DOI: 10.3390/su10103692) and complexity of supply chain solutions (see Bányai 2015 DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.01.341) if suitable.
Response 1: Thank you for the kind remarks about the good aspects of the manuscript, by which we feel very encouraged. Thanks also for suggestion regarding adding two references to our manuscript. We have carefully checked the two suggested references and agree that they could be helpful to our paper. However, after considering the length of the manuscript, and the number of already cited references, we would not add these two references to the manuscript.
Point 2:Model and assumptions are extensive discussed. I suggest you to explain why the saddle point D is inversely proportional to the area of ADCB.
Response 2:: Thanks for the positive comments regarding our discussion about the model and for the constructive comments regarding the saddle point D. Following this suggestion, we provided some more discussion in the manuscript regarding the relationship between the saddle point D and the area of ADCB as below.
“Because the area of can be expressed as , when x* and y* become smaller, area of would also be reduced. In the meantime, the area of is getting bigger, and the KS probability would become higher, and vice versa. Therefore, value of saddle point D (x*, y*) is inversely proportional to the area of.”
Point 3: The numerical example validates the mathematical model. Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed. The key functionality has been explained but the computer application for implementation is not revealed. The details of software engineering part would be interesting for anyone aiming to replicate the implementation. Pseudo-code would be useful, if suitable.
Response 3:: We are encouraged by the positive comments here regarding our mathematical model, as well as regarding theoretical and managerial implications. Constrained by the length of the manuscript, it is difficult for us to provide more details regarding our modelling computations and implementation. On the other hand, we will be very happy to provide these details to any interested reader, if being requested.
Reviewer 3 Report
The research paper is interesting, sufficiently novel.
It is recommended to extend review of literature in order to take into account harmfull behaviour of personal and composition of knowlegege sharing networks.
The following sources are recommended for inclusion into the paper:
Borisov, A.; Narozhnaia, D.; Tarando, E.; Vorontsov, A.; Pruel, N.; Nikiforova, O. 2018. Destructive motivation of personnel: a case study of Russian commercial companies, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 6(1): 253-267. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2018.6.1(16)
Bogdanović, M.; Vetráková, M.; Filip, S. 2018. Dark triad characteristics between economics & business students in Croatia & Slovakia: what can be expected from the future employees?, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 5(4): 967-991. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2018.5.4(19)
Batkovskiy, A. M.; Kalachikhin, P. A.; Semenova, E. G.; Telnov, Y. F.; Fomina, A. V.; Balashov, V. M. 2018. Conficuration of enterprise networks, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 6(1): 311-328. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2018.6.1(19)
Kantemirova, M. A.; Dzakoev, Z. L.; Alikova, Z. R.; Chedgemov, S. R.; Soskieva, Z. V. 2018. Percolation approach to simulation of a sustainable network economy structure, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 5(3): 502-513. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2018.5.3(7)
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Thank you for the valuable comments and suggestions which have been a great help to us in improving our manuscript. For convenience, we reproduce each of your comments below followed in turn by our responses. Explanations and revisions are set out in red.
Point 1:The research paper is interesting, sufficiently novel.
Response 1: Thank you for the kind remarks about the good aspects of the manuscript, by which we feel very encouraged. We believe this is an important topic and one that has not been fully addressed.
Point 1:It is recommended to extend review of literature in order to take into account harmful behaviour of personal and composition of knowledge sharing networks.
Response 2: We are grateful to your great help in providing the references. We have taken a close look at the references and decided that we do not add these references into our manuscript. Our decision is based on two factors: 1) it seems to us that the relevance of these provided references to our manuscript is not strong; and 2) as the length of the manuscript text, together with the already cited references, is a bit long. Adding extra references will make the paper too long.
Hope our explanation here is helpful to gain your understanding about the reference issue.
