Information and Knowledge Leakage in Supply Chain

Abstract

Abstract:The current world of post industrial value generation sees companies increasingly analyzing their internal operations against their external organizations to identify supply/demand fluctuations along the supply chain. Within these integrated relationships between internal and external parties in the supply chain, knowledge and information have become very important production resources. The existence and success of an increasing number of organizations strongly depend on their capabilities to utilize knowledge and information for profit generation. By managing more efficient information sharing, the volume of company confidential information passing through the supply chain increases, and this brings about more incidences of knowledge leakage and information leakage. A survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2014 shows information security spending over the next 12 months would increase 60.27 percent in Asia and 48.98 percent in all regions. This emphasizes the importance of information privacy and therefore the necessity to study the information and knowledge leakage in integrated supply chain. The objectives of this study are to investigate the factors triggering information and knowledge leakage and create a mitigation framework to soften the impact of leakages on performance. The above objectives will be met by formulating and examining several hypotheses of a conceptualized information leakage (IL) and knowledge leakage (KL) framework. A case study derived from a structured interview is adopted as a methodology in this research. As a result, this paper contributes a novel theoretical model that characterizes information and knowledge leakage in an integrated supply chain. Therefore, it also adds new knowledge of managing information and knowledge leakage to supply chain management.

Pair programming teams and high-quality knowledge sharing: A comparative study of coopetitive reward structures

“…On the one hand, cooperative rewards motivate individuals to engage in collaborative behaviors, such as high-quality knowledge sharing, oriented to producing better team outcomes and acquiring joint rewards (Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1996, Beersma et al, 2003, Tan et al, 2015. On the other hand, competitive rewards may motivate individuals to engage in the opposite set of behaviors, such as less high-quality knowledge sharing simply, to maximize individual performance and subsequent rewards (Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1996, Lucker et al, 1976, Crozier and Friedberg, 2009, Lin and Huang, 2010, Johnson and Johnson, 1998.…”

Supplier selection in Telecom supply chain management: a Fuzzy-Rasch based COPRAS-G method

“…Especially to cope with environment of cutthroat competition, effective decision-making is a necessity and multi criteria decisionmaking (MCDM) is one such approach, which can evaluates the various dimensions of the telecom service sector supply chain. Few recent works has been done so far in telecommunication sector (Pramod, Banwet 2010;Pramod et al 2016;Ogundile 2013;Tan et al 2016;India Risk Survey 2014, 2015, 2016Badri Ahmadi et al 2016). Ten potential risk attributes are brought forth through a literature survey by decision experts on supplier selection, namely, Business Espionage (C 1 ), Workplace health hazards (C 2 ), Environmental sustainability risk (C 3 ), Natural & Man-made Catastrophe (C 4 ), Strikes, Closures & Unrest (Labour issues) (C 5 ), Intellectual property theft (C 6 ), Information & Cyber insecurity risk (C 7 ), Terrorism & Insurgency (C 8 ), Logistics problem (C 9 ) and Corporate frauds (C 10 ).…”

Impact of Knowledge Sharing and Leakage on Innovative Performance

“…Tsai, 2009) for the development of knowledge sharing with competitors scale and included five paragraphs. Knowledge leakage construct has included a 11 paragraph and based on studies of (Ritala et al, 2015;Tan et al, 2015). Innovative performance paragraphs were adopted from studies of (Kitchell, 1997;Avlonitis et al 1994;Zirger, 1997;Sethi et al, 2001;Andrews and Smith, 1996;Schumpeter, 1934;Cooper, 1973;Miller, 1983), and consisted of three constructs, innovative performance in operations and include six paragraphs, five paragraphs for innovative performance in products and services, and finally six paragraphs for the innovative performance in the market, see Annex ( A) for final questionnaire items.…”