Dynamic Performance Management: An Approach for Managing the Common Goods
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you very much for giving me the chance to read your paper. The main idea of investigating the role of system dynamics and dynamic performance management in managing common goods is interesting. Nevertheless, there are some significant issues that I would strongly suggest you revise in order to reach the level needed for a Sustainability publication.
First, one minor issue regards the introduction in which you introduce the concept of "(re)generation of common goods" without clarifying why you name it "(re)generation"; do you want to aggregate the idea of "generation and regeneration" with a single word? If so, please explain this point before introducing the word "(re)generation."
Concerning the first section, I have doubts about the following statement: "Although the management of commons is becoming a key process for organizational performance [23–26]." I have checked the references, but I do not think that those two references adequately support this statement, you need to discuss better this point explaining why and how the management of the commons can be considered linked with organizational performance.
Another similar statement is the following “The lack of approaches to performance management still presents a great challenge" to be honest, I think that such a strong statement should be discussed in more detail, are you sure that lack of approach is an issue in performance management literature? Or you are talking about "holistic" approaches?
Minor issue: “Research methodology is dealt with hereunder." I think that you want to mean that it is discussed hereunder, “dealt with” is more appropriate in other types of phrases (please see my last comment).
Concerning Section 3, I have some issues that I would like to highlight in order to help you improve the paper; all these issues can be addressed, looking at the recent literature review of Ülgen, Björklund, Simm, and Forslund (2019) published in Sustainability. I think that your paper should benefit a lot from following their clear, concise, and ordered way to present a systematic literature review. I have spotted the fowling issues:
The first concern regards the exclusive use of Scopus. This choice excludes a lot of important journals from editors not linked with it. Almost all the systematic literature reviews employ at least two different sources such as Scopus and WOS (typically); I would strongly recommend checking if some important reference would emerge also employing Web Of Science. The second critical issue is that is not clear how you employ the chosen keywords; please see Ülgen et al. (2019) in order to improve this section. Another critical issue regards how you develop Table 4. I think that this table could be an interesting contribution, but in the present form is not clear and concise; you have probably to reconsider the way in which you structured it. Especially the second column is not clear what represent, and sometimes it looks like just a sort of "tag" of the main topic of the paper, but a precise spotting of which is the "common" considered and which is the "model" is often unclear and confusing. I would suggest using three columns one for the topic, one for the common, and one for the model. I would also suggest you to considerer to entirely restructure Table 4 and take also into consideration the distinction between research that address public good and those concerning common goods (and new commons), as matter of fact some of the selected research dealt with common goods (e.g., the papers concerning environments, carbon print, green building, climate change and so forth). Do the papers dealing with common goods could help the reader in understanding the link between common goods and dynamic performance management? This issue is critical because if it is so, you have to account for it and transmit to the readers the evidence that those paper provide (e.g., the references number 87, 88, 106, 107, 110, 116, 120) Linked with the issue mentioned above, there are your statements in which you claim that previous research rarely addressed common goods and new commons, these statements need to be supported by categorizing the previous literature on the basis of commons goods, new commons and public goods (thus restructuring Table 4). Furthermore, you introduce the concept of "new common good," but you do not cite the reference, nor you explain what this concept means, why these commons are "new"? How you define these commons? Why are they different from other common goods?
Discussion and conclusion are properly developed, but they suffer from the same limitations expressed above, given these sections are based on the previous systematic literature review. Therefore, you need to address the issues mentioned above and then revise the discussion and conclusion, leveraging the new insights coming from analyzing the link of previous literature with public vs. common goods (and new common if there is any).
Finally, another critical issue is the English language. I would strongly recommend submitting the paper to a professional proofreading service before resubmitting.
References of the review
Ülgen, V.S.; Björklund, M.; Simm, N.; Forslund, H. Inter-Organizational Supply Chain Interaction for Sustainability: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5488.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your useful suggestions.
We improved the manuscript according to your comments. The main changes regard the explanation of meaning (re)generation, methodological issues and specific problem on the findings. Furthermore, we reviewed the English language thank to a professional proofreading service. The certificate is in attached.
In order to reach the level needed for a publication, we improved the following issues as suggesting to you.
Comment. First, one minor issue regards the introduction in which you introduce the concept of "(re)generation of common goods" without clarifying why you name it "(re)generation"; do you want to aggregate the idea of "generation and regeneration" with a single word? If so, please explain this point before introducing the word "(re)generation."
Answer. We explained better the idea of generation and regeneration before introducing the word "(re)generation." In detail, we added that “organizations need innovative approaches for managing common goods and linking the (re)generation of common goods and organizational performance management" [1]. In fact, the common good can lose its value. For instance, through the users’ behaviour (e.g. beneficiaries’ neglect, mistakes, or disorganization) [1,20]. In this sense, the users have to contribute not only to the generation of common goods but also their regeneration; otherwise, they lose value. Thus, we introduced the word (re)generation.
Comment. Concerning the first section, I have doubts about the following statement: "Although the management of commons is becoming a key process for organizational performance [23–26]." I have checked the references, but I do not think that those two references adequately support this statement, you need to discuss better this point explaining why and how the management of the commons can be considered linked with organizational performance.
Answer. We added the right reference and discussed better why and how the management of the commons can be considered linked with organizational performance. In particular, we referred to Ricciardi et al. (2019) which state “The common good should be the final goal of organizational performance”. Then, we address the lack of a dynamic approach that links organizational learning, organizational performance, and the common good. This lack has also highlighted to Ricciardi et al. (2019).
Comment. Another similar statement is the following “The lack of approaches to performance management still presents a great challenge" to be honest, I think that such a strong statement should be discussed in more detail, are you sure that lack of approach is an issue in performance management literature? Or you are talking about "holistic" approaches?
Answer. We talk about holistic approaches as highlighted by Bourne et al. (2018), Smith and Bititici (2017) and Bititci et al. (2012). We address this issue as follows. “There is a need for rethinking how scholars research the field of performance measurement and management by holistic approaches, recognizing the integrated and concurrent nature of challenges [39]”.
Comment. Minor issue: “Research methodology is dealt with hereunder." I think that you want to mean that it is discussed hereunder, “dealt with” is more appropriate in other types of phrases (please see my last comment).
Answer. We changed this sentence as follows. “Research methodology is discussed hereunder”.
Concerning Section 3, I have some issues that I would like to highlight in order to help you improve the paper; all these issues can be addressed, looking at the recent literature review of Ülgen, Björklund, Simm, and Forslund (2019) published in Sustainability. I think that your paper should benefit a lot from following their clear, concise, and ordered way to present a systematic literature review. I have spotted the following issues:
The first concern regards the exclusive use of Scopus. This choice excludes a lot of important journals from editors not linked with it. Almost all the systematic literature reviews employ at least two different sources such as Scopus and WOS (typically); I would strongly recommend checking if some important reference would emerge also employing Web Of Science.
Answer. We checked other references on Web Of Science and we did not find any key specific paper. However, we included also Web Of Science in our database and cited the similar statement of Ülgen, Björklund, Simm, and Forslund (2019), i.e., In stage two we examined the peer-reviewed literature available on Scopus and Web of Science because the Scopus database has the best coverage in the field and Web of Science has the best complementary database [57].
Comment. The second critical issue is that is not clear how you employ the chosen keywords; please see Ülgen et al. (2019) in order to improve this section.
Answer. We added the References that you suggested “Ülgen, V.S.; Björklund, M.; Simm, N.; Forslund, H. Inter-Organizational Supply Chain Interaction for Sustainability: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 54-88”. Then, we added the following statement “To identify a field/subfields of study we made informal consultations with academics working in the area, practitioners working in the field and information scientists [56]”.
Another critical issue regards how you develop Table 4. I think that this table could be an interesting contribution, but in the present form is not clear and concise; you have probably to reconsider the way in which you structured it. Especially the second column is not clear what represent, and sometimes it looks like just a sort of "tag" of the main topic of the paper, but a precise spotting of which is the "common" considered and which is the "model" is often unclear and confusing. I would suggest using three columns one for the topic, one for the common, and one for the model. I would also suggest you to considerer to entirely restructure Table 4 and take also into consideration the distinction between research that address public good and those concerning common goods (and new commons), as matter of fact some of the selected research dealt with common goods (e.g., the papers concerning environments, carbon print, green building, climate change and so forth). Do the papers dealing with common goods could help the reader in understanding the link between common goods and dynamic performance management? This issue is critical because if it is so, you have to account for it and transmit to the readers the evidence that those paper provide (e.g., the references number 87, 88, 106, 107, 110, 116, 120) Linked with the issue mentioned above, there are your statements in which you claim that previous research rarely addressed common goods and new commons, these statements need to be supported by categorizing the previous literature on the basis of commons goods, new commons and public goods (thus restructuring Table 4). Furthermore, you introduce the concept of "new common good," but you do not cite the reference, nor you explain what this concept means, why these commons are "new"? How you define these commons? Why are they different from other common goods?
Answer. Thank you so much about this comment. According to your suggestion, we replaced the concept of "new common good" with recent common. We put the lack of studies on common goods created/generated in last years”. Furthermore, we improved partially Table 4 according to reviewers’ suggestions. Then, we added a research limitation. i.e., we highlighted that the analysis of topic and model for each paper look like just a sort of "tag" of the main topic of the paper and lacks a precise spotting of which is the "common" considered. However, thank this analysis, we would provide only an overall insight for the management of common goods and organisational performance and show scholars the main research opportunities and useful ideas on the adoption of system dynamics for managing common goods.
Discussion and conclusion are properly developed, but they suffer from the same limitations expressed above, given these sections are based on the previous systematic literature review. Therefore, you need to address the issues mentioned above and then revise the discussion and conclusion, leveraging the new insights coming from analyzing the link of previous literature with public vs. common goods (and new common if there is any).
Answer. Responding above issue, we improved the findings and successfully improve the discussion and conclusion.
Comment. Finally, another critical issue is the English language. I would strongly recommend submitting the paper to a professional proofreading service before resubmitting.
Answer. We submitted the paper to a professional proofreading service. The certificate is in attached.
Thank you again for your comments and suggestions. They are very useful to improve our work.
We would be very grateful if you would consider publishing in Sustainability.
I look forward to receiving your kind reply,
Yours sincerely
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your suggestions. In particular, we appreciate your comment about "how the disclosures of issues related to common goods could still take on a very holistic". We agree strongly with this comment. We added that new models should be developed looking at national and above all international policies and their impact in terms of social and economic effects.
We edited the paper according to all your comments. In following, the specific answer for each comment.
Comment. Throughout the paper, you refer to “the common goods.” Use of “the” implies there is a discreet and finite set of common goods (at least, that is the way I interpret it.) I believe you could eliminate “the” in each of those references and make the paper a little cleaner as well as more accurate in describing common goods. Further, one of the most over-used words in most papers is “the.” After I have written a paper, I will carefully go back and determine whether every use of the word “the” was necessary. If not, I eliminate it.
Answer. We deleted “the” behind “common goods” and other words.
Comment. 29 – “…should available…” needs a verb.
Answer. We changed ““…should available…” with “need”.
Comment. 45 – “…not enough adopted…” should read, perhaps, “…not widely enough adopted…”
Answer. We edited “…not enough adopted…” with “…not widely enough adopted…”
Comment. 81-83 – I am left unclear on the meaning of rivalrous in this context, which leaves me a little short of understanding your distinction between a common good and a public good.
Answer. We included the diction between “rivalrous” and “non-rivalrous”. The public good is “non-rivalrous” because the cost of providing it to an additional consumer is zero. The common good is "rivalrous" because its consumption by one consumer prevents or reduces its consumption by other consumers [17].
Comment. 89 – “…the ability of (re)generate value available depends…” I think I understand what you mean; however, you may want to re-word. E.g., “…the ability to (re)generate available value depends…” Is that what you were trying for?
Answer. We edited “…the ability of (re)generate value available depends…” with “…the ability to (re)generate available value depends…”.
Comment. 112-116 – I see the reference for this statement came from a conference paper. I’m a little skeptical of the ranking of Italy, given the sustainability papers that come out of Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. However, I would be interested in seeing more, say a table with the top ten countries involved in producing this literature. Actually, I wonder how important this brief paragraph is.
Answer. We are according to your opinion. We deleted this statement “The U.S.A., U.K. and Italy are the countries with the highest number of publications in this field. Many of these publications deal with performance measurement activities in the public context, fewer publications deal with performance management activities [39]”. This paper will be in the press in a short time.
Comment. 117 and 121 – “(R)esearches” shouldn’t be plural.
Answer. We edited the sentences.
Comment. 133 – We here argue is awkward. We argue would be better.
In these sections discussing past research, you switch back and forth to and from past and present tense. I would be using present tense (e.g., in 127 pointed should be point.) In particular, when I am using literature to support my research questions, I like to think of existing research as a current and living thing – not the study that occurred in the past.
Answer. We edited using the present tense.
Comment. 207 – I see a problem with the way the reference to top authors is presented. I would use “e.g.,” since it’s a qualitative call on where to draw the line on who are the most prolific authors; and, I would put the list in parentheses.) And do you mean the same Forrester/Forrest in your two references to what appears to be the same author?
Answer. We edited this statement as follows: “Secondly, it highlights the most prolific authors (e.g. Bianchi, Forrester, Skibniewski and Tatari)”.
Comment. 221 – Table 3 colours make it hard to read in the page proof.
Answer. We changed colours in Table 3.
Comment. 229 – Just to be clear, I would like to know whether reporting of these countries is referring to the origin of the journals (which I assume is not the case,) the origin of the authors (which I assume IS the case,) the country of the public entity examined (which I assume is not the case.) I think that needs clarifies, then reflected upon on whether the country of origin tells us about the country in which reporting takes place or the origins of the authors doing the research.
Answer. We included what “This analysis is referred to the Country of the public entity examined”.
Comment. 234 – Is the country information in Table 4 contradicting your conclusion about Italy being the 3rd highest (referred to above.)
Answer. We deleted this statement.
Comment. 250 – “…and etc.” is redundant.
Answer. We deleted “…and etc.”
Comment. 251 – Considerate (as a verb) is not a word.
Answer. We changed “considerate”.
Comment. 263 – In the title of Table 4, do you mean Common Good?
Answer. We edited the title of Table 4.
Comment. 263 – Table 4 is very hard to understand. I can only assume its purpose in the summary provided immediately afterward.
Answer. We edited Table 4.
Comment. 265-266 – confusing wording
We edited confusing wording.
Comment. 267 – I don’t really understand what you mean by either of those terms (I know the definitions, but am unclear on how you decided whether a paper was one or the other.)
Answer. We say "performance measurement and management", like field, stream (referred authors like, Neely, Bourne, Bititci).
Comment. 268 – I am a little unclear on how any given paper could not cover one or the other of these, at least implicitly.
Answer. In this sentence, we wrote rarely.
Comment. 269-270 – Another use of “considerate” as a verb. Also, it should be “(re)generation of the common goods.”
Answer. We changed “considerate”
Comment. 319 – Should be “common goods.”
Answer. We changed this.
Comment. 332-333 – There seems to be a very large gap in scope implied. The examples you provide, I would suggest, are very localized (e.g., hospital or city) and there is a tremendous range between that and “at least national in scope.” (I was tempted to ask what would be larger than national – but, true, you do have international organizations.) I would think that discussing state, county, regional programs and the disclosures of issues related to common goods could still take on a very holistic approach, and be more achievable.
Answer. Thank you for your suggestion, we agree strongly with your comments. We added that new models should be developed looking at national and international policies and their impact in terms of social and economic effects.
Broader comments:
Comment. I would like to see a discussion on the specific rules you implemented in your content analysis (specifically, and especially, of how you decide on how to categorize the documents.)
Answer. In order to identify the topic and model developed for each paper, we read the full papers. After that, we categorized the documents. In this sense, we added a brief explanation in the methodology section.
Comment. I might suggest a little more coverage on the papers that have addressed performance measurement and management of public goods (e.g., a paper I recently published was the use of activity-based costing as a measurement and management tool for evaluating physical environmental costs, e.g., metric tons of CO2 as a measure of GHG output – so, such papers do exist.). And, in general, I would go through the paper and carefully edit. I got the impression there were sections written by someone who is slightly less fluent in English. Having said that, I very much appreciate the effort of writing to an English speaking audience. I concede it’s pretty Anglo-centric of me to wish for better grammar.
Answer. Thank you so much for your suggestion, they are so useful for improving the paper. The paper benefited from a proof-reader.
Thank you again for your suggestions.
We edited the paper according to almost all your comments.
We would be very grateful if you would consider publishing in Sustainability.
I look forward to receiving your kind reply,
Yours sincerely
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
thank you very much for having addressed almost all my doubts and concerns. Because of your revision I have gained a better understanding of your contribution, at the same time I think that you have improved your paper in terms of clarity, strength, and rigor.
