Improving the Effectiveness of Organisational Collaborative Innovation in Megaprojects: An Agent-Based Modelling Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors are presenting very generally the objective of the article, but the objectives of the research are not clear. Which are the research questions they propose to answer?
Please make the following corrections:
- Table 1 from page 9 is actually table 2.
-I recommend table 2 on the next page after its reference in the text (on page 8).
Author Response
Point 1: The authors are presenting very generally the objective of the article, but the objectives of the research are not clear. Which are the research questions they propose to answer?
Response 1: We are sorry for the confusing interpretation of the research objectives of the article. Our initial intention is to introduce the theory of collaborative innovation in megaprojects（CIMP）from the complex organisational collaborative relationships and innovation needs of the megaprojects. By developing a simulation model of CIMP to explore the mechanisms of innovation output in the CIMP process, to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of organisational collaborative innovation. We intend to answer three main questions, 1) the importance of CIMP; 2) how organisations interact collaboratively in the process of CIMP; and 3) The influence of behavioural factors (e.g., innovation environment, innovation network organisation scale, inter-organisational relationship evaluation criteria) on the realisation of CIMP. However, as you pointed out, this may lead to a lack of clarity about the objectives of our research. We have therefore added to this in the abstract and introduction sections. The revisions are as follows：
On this basis, the purpose of this study is to explore the innovation output mechanisms in the process of collaborative innovation in megaproject (CIMP) by the agent-based modelling (ABM) approach and promote the efficiency and effectiveness of organisation collaborative innovation through variable control. A multi-agent simulation model of CIMP was developed using the NetLogo tool. The model encompasses the behavioural factors and interaction rules that affect organisational CIMP. (Section Abstract, Page 1, Line 14-19)
This study developed the theory of CIMP from the perspective of organisational behaviour. The findings are expected to provide methodological and practical guidance for the selection of innovation agents, behavioural patterns, and the guarantee of innovation efficiency for megaproject collaborative organisations.”(Section Abstract, Page 1, Line 26-29)
To facilitate the successful operation of megaprojects, organisations need innovation to solve complex construction problems and achieve efficient innovation outputs. (Section Introduction, Page 1-2, Line 44-45)
Thus, the realisation of CIMP requires the involvement of multiple organisations working together to achieve innovation goals, and can also be influenced by factors such as cultural environment, behavioural choices, and innovation capacity. (Section Introduction, Page 1, Line 75-77)
However, few studies have discussed the behavioural interactions between organisations in the process of CIMP and their differential impact on collaborative innovation outcomes. The bottleneck is the need for extensive evaluation predictions to reveal the impact of different contexts on CIMP, which facilitates organisations to prioritise enhanced decisions in the innovation process to achieve better collaborative innovation outcomes. (Section Introduction, Page 3, Line 107-112)
References:
Gao, S.; Song, X. ; Ding, R. Promoting Information Transfer in Collaborative Projects through Network Structure Adjustment. J. Constr. Eng. M. 2020, 146, 04019108.
Xue, J.; Shen, G.Q.; Yang, R.J.; Zafar, I.; Ekanayake, E.M.A.C.; Lin, X. ; Darko, A. Influence of formal and informal stakeholder relationship on megaproject performance: a case of China. Eng. Constr. Archit. Ma. 2020, 27, 1505-1531.
Point 2: Please make the following corrections:
- Table 1 from page 9 is actually table 2.
-I recommend table 2 on the next page after its reference in the text (on page 8).
Response 2: We are very sorry for our careless mistake and it was rectified at Line 304. Also, we very much endorse your suggestion to list Table 2 on the next page of the in-text citation. We have taken the reviewer's advice to list Table 2 on page 8, which is close to the reference in the text. Further, we have listed Table 1 on page 4, also close to the reference in the text. As shown in Tables 1 and 2.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is well developed and is important within the theme where it is inserted.
The literature review is adequate and relevant.
The methodology responds to the research proposal, bringing a set of results that are extensively discussed and crossed with the acquired knowledge.
The conclusions reflect well the development of the work.
Author Response
Many thanks for your positive comments, it is my great honour to receive yours. Your approval is a great encouragement to us, thank you once again.
Reviewer 3 Report
The introduction to the article provides ample background and includes all relevant references. Leading research has been identified and appropriate sources cited. The cited references relevant to the research. They are also an interesting reference point for readers.
The language of the publication is correct. The publication reads well, it is interesting.
The research design is appropriate. This translates into the structure of the article. It is absolutely correct and contains an introduction, a literature review taking into account various categories. The methodology is then described. The description is clear and supported by appropriate diagrams and tables.
The next chapter describes the simulations and their results. Multiple repetitions of the experiment were conducted to reduce the random errors generated by individual experiments. The graphs showing the results are well made and allow the evaluation of the results.
The results show the different effects of the innovation environment, innovation network strength, inter-organizational relationship evaluation criteria, resource consumption and absorption on collaborative innovation outcomes.
The results are followed by a discussion. It is carried out in a logical way. The theoretical and practical implications have been rightly pointed out. Importantly, limitations and future research directions were also indicated.
The article shows that the proposed model is an effective tool for understanding the innovation process in megaprojects and simulating collaborative interactions between organizations.
In conclusion, the methods are adequately described, the results are clearly presented, and the conclusions are supported by the results.
This research is particularly important as nowadays an increasing number of megaprojects are under construction all around the world.
Author Response
Many thanks for your positive comments, it is my great honour to receive yours. Your approval is a great encouragement to us, thank you once again.
Reviewer 4 Report
Overall the authors have presented a very good research work however the manuscript needs careful proofreading. On-Line 16-17: the statement “specific models 16 for behavioral descriptions and interactive simulations of CIMP realizations are lacking” is not justified in the manuscript. In fact there are several collaborative models which have focused on organizational relations as well as knowledge management. The authors are suggested to justify such claims. Also, the authors should justify the usefulness of the developed model in comparison with other research works focusing on the collaborative models for megaprojects. For example Hetemi, E., Ordieres, J., & Nuur, C. (2022). Inter-organisational collaboration and knowledge-work: a contingency framework and evidence from a megaproject in Spain. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1-13, has highlighted collaboration strategies and knowledge for contingency analysis.
Author Response
Point 1: Overall the authors have presented a very good research work however the manuscript needs careful proofreading. On-Line 16-17: the statement “specific models 16 for behavioral descriptions and interactive simulations of CIMP realizations are lacking” is not justified in the manuscript. In fact, there are several collaborative models which have focused on organizational relations as well as knowledge management. The authors are suggested to justify such claims.
Response 1: Thank you for your careful review. After careful proofreading of the manuscript, we found that the phrase "specific models for behavioural descriptions and interactive simulations of CIMP realizations are lacking" was indeed inappropriate. We referred to the reviewers' comments and firstly reorganised the abstract section. Secondly, in the revised manuscript, we have added to the literature describing collaborative models of megaprojects. These articles are helpful for this paper to point out the shortcomings of the current state of research on collaborative innovation in megaprojects and consolidate the theoretical foundation of collaborative innovation.
Point 2: Also, the authors should justify the usefulness of the developed model in comparison with other research works focusing on the collaborative models for megaprojects. For example Hetemi, E., Ordieres, J., & Nuur, C. (2022). Inter-organisational collaboration and knowledge-work: a contingency framework and evidence from a megaproject in Spain. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1-13, has highlighted collaboration strategies and knowledge for contingency analysis.
Response 2: We are grateful to the reviewers for encouraging us to provide additional support for the model developed. We referred to the reviewers' comments and added them to the article. In the introduction section, we supplemented the article with relevant research on megaproject collaboration models to provide support for the models we have developed. During the development of the model, expert consultation and case information queries were used to set the parameters required for the model. Ultimately, the results of the simulation experiments fully reflect the degree of influence and relevance of each variable on inter-organisational collaborative behaviour.
The revisions are as follows ：
On this basis, the purpose of this study is to explore the innovation output mechanisms in the process of collaborative innovation in megaproject (CIMP) by the agent-based modelling (ABM) approach and promote the efficiency and effectiveness of organisation collaborative innovation through variable control. A multi-agent simulation model of CIMP was developed using the NetLogo tool. The model encompasses the behavioural factors and interaction rules that affect organisational CIMP. (Section Abstract, Page 1, Line 14-19)
This study developed the theory of CIMP from the perspective of organisational behaviour. The findings are expected to provide methodological and practical guidance for the selection of innovation agents, behavioural patterns, and the guarantee of innovation efficiency for megaproject collaborative organisations.”(Section Abstract, Page 1, Line 26-29)
Recent research on megaprojects has highlighted inter-organisational collaborative relationships and collaboration strategies [22]. A study described how ecosystem captains create collaborative ecosystems for megaprojects by integrating innovation networks and fostering innovation cultures [23]. Hetemi, Ordieres, and Nuur [24] explored knowledge transfer and utilisation between megaproject organisations from a process perspective, emphasising collaboration in an inter-organisational network environment. Xue et al. [25] provided insights into stakeholder relationship management in megaprojects by presenting a conceptual model and Partial Least squares Structural Equation Modeling results that explain the differential impact of formal and informal relationships on the performance of megaprojects. Deng et al. [26] used structural equation modelling methods to analyse the role and impact of collaborative governance within and between organisations in megaprojects. This work, including but not limited to, has provided favourable support for the development of CIMP theory. However, few studies have discussed the behavioural interactions between organisations in the process of CIMP and their differential impact on collaborative innovation outcomes. The bottleneck is the need for extensive evaluation predictions to reveal the impact of different contexts on CIMP, which facilitates organisations to prioritise enhanced decisions in the innovation process to achieve better collaborative innovation outcomes. (Section Introduction, Page 2-3, Line 96-113)
Finally, this study breaks the limitation that traditional megaproject management can only randomly select collaborating organisations for innovation. (Section Discussion, Page 556-557)
References:
Chen, H.; Jin, Z.; Su, Q. ; Yue, G. The roles of captains in megaproject innovation ecosystems: the case of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge. Eng. Constr. Archit. Ma. 2020, 28, 662-680.
Hetemi, E.; Ordieres, J. ; Nuur, C. Inter-organisational collaboration and knowledge-work: a contingency framework and evidence from a megaproject in Spain. Knowl. Man. Res. Pract. 2022, 1-13.
Xue, J.; Shen, G.Q.; Yang, R.J.; Zafar, I.; Ekanayake, E.M.A.C.; Lin, X. ; Darko, A. Influence of formal and informal stakeholder relationship on megaproject performance: a case of China. Eng. Constr. Archit. Ma. 2020, 27, 1505-1531.
Deng, B.; Xie, W.; Cheng, F.; Deng, J. ; Long, L. Complexity Relationship between Power and Trust in Hybrid Megaproject Governance: The Structural Equation Modelling Approach. Complexity 2021, 2021, 1-13.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
