12/2017 vol. 13
Stats
CC-BY 4.0
Get citation
SPECIAL ISSUE PAPER
Dynamic Credibility Evaluation on High-tech Enterprise Partners in Knowledge Collaboration Using a SPA-Markov Model
Yinqi Li 1
,
 
Yi Su 1
 
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
School of Economics and Management, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin, CHINA
 
 
Online publication date: 2017-11-24
 
 
Publication date: 2017-11-24
 
 
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2017;13(12):8213-8225
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/77905
 
 
Article (PDF)
References (48)
 
This article belongs to the special issue "Problems of Application Analysis in Knowledge Management and Science-Mathematics-Education".
KEYWORDS
high-tech enterprises
knowledge collaboration
credibility
dynamic evaluation
 
TOPICS
Evaluation and Assessment
Mathematics Education
 
ABSTRACT
An evaluation on high-tech enterprise research and development (R&D) is of great necessity for boosting innovative economy and high-tech industry in the era of knowledge economy. However, high-tech enterprises cannot fully understand their partners’ R&D capabilities and cooperative tendencies due to information asymmetry. Driven by interest, opportunistic behaviors might emerge, reducing trust and affecting efficient R&D cooperation. To explore R&D partners’ credibility and avoid opportunistic behaviors, this study establishes an evaluation index system on the credibility of high-tech enterprise partners based on literature extraction and law relationship. The SPA-Markov Model has been adopted to dynamically evaluate the credibility in knowledge collaboration. Finally, HS, the China FAW Tooling Die Manufacturing’s partner, is case-studied to verify feasibility of the model. The results are as follows: (1) Social environment, partner competence, partnership and collaborative potential are key indexes measuring partner credibility. (2) The SPA-Model Model could figure out changes and trends of the credibility. (3) The credibility of high-tech enterprise partners might fluctuate in collaboration. According to the study, the SPA-Model Model is feasible for assessing the credibility, which makes up for static evaluation and provides novel ideas on evaluation and optimization of high-tech enterprise partners.
 
REFERENCES (48)
1.
Anand, B. N., & Khanna, T. (2000). Do firms learn to create value? The case of alliances. Strategic management journal, 295-315.
Google Scholar
 
 
2.
Batt, P. J. (2003). Building trust between growers and market agents. Supply Chain Management: an international journal, 8(1), 65-78.
Google Scholar
 
 
3.
Belkadi, F., & Bernard, A. (2015). Trust-based patterns for the management of inter-enterprises collaborations in context of extended enterprise. IFAC-Papers OnLine, 48(3), 1186-1191.
Google Scholar
 
 
4.
Brouthers, K. D., Brouthers, L. E., & Wilkinson, T. J. (1995). Strategic alliances: Choose your partners. Long range planning, 28(3), 218-25.
Google Scholar
 
 
5.
Bunduchi, R. (2013). Trust: partner selection and innovation outcome in collaborative new product development. Production planning & control, 24(2-3), 145-157.
Google Scholar
 
 
6.
Chen, S., Wang, P., & Chen, M. (2010). An analytic hierarchy process approach with linguistic variables for selection of an R&D strategic alliance partner. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 58(2), 278-287.
Google Scholar
 
 
7.
Chen, T. Y., Chen, Y. M., Lin, C. J., & Chen, P. Y. (2010). A fuzzy trust evaluation method for knowledge sharing in virtual enterprises. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 59(4), 853-864.
Google Scholar
 
 
8.
Cheng, Q., Hu, L., & Cui, S. (2014). Research on Trust Evaluation of Cooperative Innovation Partners Based on Knowledge Transfer. Operations Research and Management Science, 23(1), 143-150.
Google Scholar
 
 
9.
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2001). Trust, control, and risk in strategic alliances: An integrated framework. Organization studies, 22(2), 251-283.
Google Scholar
 
 
10.
Elmuti, D., Abebe, M., & Nicolosi, M. (2005). An overview of strategic alliances between universities and corporations. Journal of workplace Learning, 17(1/2), 115-129.
Google Scholar
 
 
11.
Feng, W. (2000). Partners selection process and optimization model for virtual corporations based on genetic algorithms. Journal of Tsinghua University (Science and Technology), 40(10), 120-124.
Google Scholar
 
 
12.
Gulati, R. (1995). Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of management journal, 38(1), 85-112.
Google Scholar
 
 
13.
Guo, R. (2003). Application of AHP in selecting virtual enterprise’s copartner. Machinery, 30(3), 53-55.
Google Scholar
 
 
14.
Halil, F. M., Mohammed, M. F., Mahbub, R., & Shukur, A. S. (2016). Trust Attributes to Supply Chain Partnering in Industrialised Building System. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 222, 46-55.
Google Scholar
 
 
15.
Hewett, K., & Bearden, W. O. (2001). Dependence, trust, and relational behavior on the part of foreign subsidiary marketing operations: implications for managing global marketing operations. Journal of marketing, 65(4), 51-66.
Google Scholar
 
 
16.
Hsueh, S. L., & Kuo, C. H. (2016). Factors in an interdisciplinary curriculum for the students of industrial design designing multifunctional products. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(4), 1075-1089.
Google Scholar
 
 
17.
Hu, W. (2012). Research status on E-commerce credibility evalutians. Electronics World, 16, 12-14.
Google Scholar
 
 
18.
Hu, X., Yang, H., & Li, J. (2008). Set pair analysis model for river health system assessment. Systems Engineering —Theory & Practice, 28(5), 164-170.
Google Scholar
 
 
19.
Jia, S., & Du, B. (2011). Hybrid optimized algorithms based on the Rosenbrock search method and dynamic inertia weight PSO. Control and Decision, 26(7), 1060-1064.
Google Scholar
 
 
20.
Jing, P., Lu, M., & Gao, M. (2013). Dynamic Assessment of Human Resources Outsourcing Risk Based on SPA. Mathematics in Practice and Theory, 43(1), 48-53.
Google Scholar
 
 
21.
Käser, P. A. W., & Miles, R. E. (2001). Knowledge activists: the cultivation of motivation and trust properties of knowledge sharing relationships. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 1-6.
Google Scholar
 
 
22.
Koufaris, M., & Hampton-Sosa, W. (2004). The development of initial trust in an online company by new customers. Information & management, 41(3), 377-397.
Google Scholar
 
 
23.
Kraaijenbrink, J., Wijnhoven, F., & Groen, A. (2007). Towards a kernel theory of external knowledge integration for high-tech firms: Exploring a failed theory test. Technological forecasting and social change, 74(8), 1215-1233.
Google Scholar
 
 
24.
Liao, C. (2004). Influential Factors and Mechanism of Trust Relationship in Virtual Marketing. Management World, 6, 149-150.
Google Scholar
 
 
25.
Liu, G., & Zheng, P. (2004). Fuzzy Synthetical Evaluation and Optimization of Partners’ Choice in Virtual Enterprise. Journal of Hebei University of Technology, 33(1), 84-88.
Google Scholar
 
 
26.
Mason, J. C. (1993). Strategic alliances: partnering for success. Management Review, 82(5), 10.
Google Scholar
 
 
27.
Meng, F. J., & Deng, J. T. (2003). The establishment process of collaborative product commerce. Proceedings of the International Conference on Agile Manufacturing. Beijing: China Machina Press, 177-181.
Google Scholar
 
 
28.
Merchant, J. E. (1997). The role of governments in a market economy: Future strategies for the high-tech industry in America. International journal of production economics, 52(1-2), 117-131.
Google Scholar
 
 
29.
Mikhailov, L. (2002). Fuzzy analytical approach to partnership selection in formation of virtual enterprises. Omega, 30(5), 393-401.
Google Scholar
 
 
30.
Mohr, J., & Spekman, R. (1994). Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic management journal, 15(2), 135-152.
Google Scholar
 
 
31.
Niedergassel, B., & Leker, J. (2011). Different dimensions of knowledge in cooperative R&D projects of university scientists. Technovation, 31(4), 142-150.
Google Scholar
 
 
32.
Nielsen, B. B. (2004). The role of trust in collaborative relationships: A multi-dimensional approach. Management, 7(3), 239-256.
Google Scholar
 
 
33.
Roumani, Y., Nwankpa, J. K., & Roumani, Y. F. (2017). Adopters’ trust in enterprise open source vendors: An empirical examination. Journal of Systems and Software, 125, 256-270.
Google Scholar
 
 
34.
Sako, M., & Helper, S. (1998). Determinants of trust in supplier relations: Evidence from the automotive industry in Japan and the United States. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 34(3), 387-417.
Google Scholar
 
 
35.
Shi, X., Zhang, T., & Lei, L. (2014). Dynamic evaluation of ecological security based on set pair analysis and Markov chain. Journal of Computer Applications, 34(2), 519-522.
Google Scholar
 
 
36.
Sklavounos, N. S., Rotsios, K. P., & Hajidimitriou, Y. A. (2015). The impact of age, interdependence and perceived risk of opportunism on inter-partner trust in international strategic alliances. Procedia Economics and Finance, 19, 175-183.
Google Scholar
 
 
37.
Song, L., & Xu, Z. (2009). Assessment of power customer credit risk based on set pair analysis and Markov chain model. Electric Power Automation Equipment, 29(12), 37-40.
Google Scholar
 
 
38.
Tam, M. C. Y., & Tummala, V. M. R. (2001). An application of the AHP in vendor selection of a telecommunications system. Omega, 29(2), 171-182.
Google Scholar
 
 
39.
Tan, C., & Zhao, D. (2009). Research on Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluating the Degree of Enterprise’s Website Trustiness. Information Science, 27(7), 1094-1099.
Google Scholar
 
 
40.
Walrod, W. (1999). Knowledge, trust, and cooperative relationships in the US biotechnology industry (Ph. D. Thesis). University of California, Irvine.
Google Scholar
 
 
41.
Wang, D. B., & Lu, W. J. (2017). The Construction and Application of Functional Indexes of Colleges and Universities in the Development of Sports Industry—Analysis Based on Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation Method. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 13(8), 6027-6036.
Google Scholar
 
 
42.
Wang, H., Wu, Y., & Yang, J. (2006). Set Pair Analysis of Comprehensive Effect of Economy and Environmental on the Industrial Enterprises. Mathematics in Practice and Theory, 36(1), 70-74.
Google Scholar
 
 
43.
Wang, Z., Xu, X., & Zhan, D. (2009). Genetic algorithm for collaboration cost optimization-oriented partner selection in virtual enterprises. International Journal of Production Research, 47(4), 859-881.
Google Scholar
 
 
44.
Xue, W., & Zhang, J. (2010). Study on the Partner Selection for Mutualism Cooperation of High-tech Enterprise Alliance. R & D Management, 22(1), 82-89.
Google Scholar
 
 
45.
Yong, K., Xu, K., & Liu, J. (2012). SPA-Markov Chain Model for Evaluating and Forecasting Urban Buried Gas Pipeline Risk. China Safety Science Journal, 22(3), 147-152.
Google Scholar
 
 
46.
You, D., & Huang, X. (2014). Partner Selection and Evaluation of Radical Technological Innovation. Systems Engineering, 32(3), 99-103.
Google Scholar
 
 
47.
Zhao, Q., Zhang, X., & Xiao, R. (2008). Particle swarm optimization algorithm for partner selection in virtual enterprise. Progress in Natural Science, 18(11), 1445-1452.
Google Scholar
 
 
48.
Zhou, Q., Ye, Y., & Wang, Q. (2013). SPA-Markov Estimation Model on Safety Management Capability of Mine Construction Enterprises. Industrial Safety and Environmental Protection, 39(10), 42-45.
Google Scholar
 
 
Share
Send by email
Indexes
 
Keywords index
Topics index
Authors index
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215
Journals System - logo
© 2006-2024 Journal hosting platform by Bentus
Scroll to top