Sustainable Business Model Based on Digital Twin Platform Network: The Inspiration from Haier’s Case Study in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper explores the case of Haier’s network platform and tries to develop the theory of sustainable business model theory. The work of this paper is practical and logical. However, there are some problems need to be further improved as well, my detailed comments as follows:

 

Where is the novelty of theory development? I even cannot find the research question. The research problem and the positioning of the paper are not properly developed. This includes informing the reader of the present state of the knowledge in the field, why this study is needed, what contribution the research could make and to which theory.

 

The methods and theoretical innovations are not sufficient. The author just simply summarizes the findings from Haier without a good theoretical framework. The author must dig deeper in theory building.

 

The main point of this paper should focus on this question “How does Haier move from one business model to a more sustainable business model?.” However, it is hard to see the mechanism in building a sustainable business model in this study The author should have more discussion about the process and causation, maybe through some propositions.

 

Another obvious problem with this paper is the lack of enough research design to address the internal viability and external variability. The author only has some interviews in this paper but has not measured the social impact of a sustainable business model. The results from this one case not representative or convincible. I like to encourage the author to do more experiments with more samples in this study.

 

The literature review is overly descriptive and would benefit from greater critical analysis of the extant research in the field. Furthermore, some important studies have not been consulted, such as Geissdoerferab, Vladimirovaa, and Evansa (2018).

 

Overall, I think you have a good story to start with some very interesting findings. However, the paper falls short on theorizing. I encourage you to take a step back and invest sufficient time and effort in addressing these fundamental challenges.

 

 

Author Response

We appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Please see the attachment of point-by-point response. Wish you a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author/s, 

I appreciated the topic of your manuscript since it is innovative and in line with the aim of the journal. However, I believe some revisions should be carried out before considering it for publication: 

in Section 3.2.2. a greater discussion/description on environmental and social benefits should be provided, if possibile in a historical perspective. In this way benefits could be better appreciated.  Figure 2: are these value in constant terms (i.e. deflated values)? In the discussion, I believe a general explanation on how the proposed case-study could be extended should be (better) provided.  

Author Response

We appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and hope that the revision will meet with approval. 

Please see the attachment of point-by-point response.

Wish you a Very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is well thought and structured. Authors have done a good job, describing the sustainable BM of Haier, building up a case that could be used even for instructing purposes. The description of both the BM and the use of IoT in Haier, and, even, the bibliography is very valuable for Academia.

Some comments/suggestions from the formal point of view:

a) Authors use the expression "Althoug..., but..." twice. Is the conjunction needed?
b) On page 6, in the last paragraph there is a statement related to reference number 26 in bibliography. Is this reference correct? Could it be related to number 45 or 46?

Some comments/suggestions from the content point of view:

a) "Ren Dan He Yi" model is cited several times, and the paper would be better understood with a deeper description of it.

b) The description of Haier´s platform is quite clear as an ecosystem based in IoT. It is not so clear how it works as a "digital twin", at least, as it is defined in the introduction. If the authors could devote a section describing it, even graphically, the paper would be more meaningful.

c) The results should give answer to the objective of the research. In the paper, they are still related to the company that has been analysed. Don´t you think that a greater abstraction is needed? How could we go from a given case to a more universal model? Maybe, with a separated section? 

I have enjoyed analysing the paper, and I have broadened my knowledge in theses topics, so I would like to thank the authors for their work. And encourage them to fulfil the expectations created by the title and the introduction of their paper. Good job and good luck!

Author Response

We appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and hope that the revision will meet with approval.

Please see the attachment of point-by-point response.

Wish you a Very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for addressing my concerns and resubmitting the paper. I found the new theory framework on coupling relationship has the potential impacts to both scholars and practitioners, alike. However, as I discuss below, I also feel that it’s overall potential is currently being hindered by a number of issues.

 

1/ Research question: In your response letter, you stated that you added the research question. Unfortunately, I cannot find them on Lines 133—142). I only found that you raised these questions on lines 287-289: “what value can the products and services of the enterprise bring to the environment and society and what kind of relationship has the enterprise established with the stakeholders at the environmental and social levels.” I do not think these questions are related to your key question. Please make sure you raise the research question in the first paragraph, such as: “how do enterprises use digital twin platforms to co-create economic, social and environmental benefits in various dimensions? Then you should emphasize why this research question is so important. Pls. rewrite your introduction significantly.

 

2/ Theory framework. I feel that the coupling relation and cocreation are the right direction. Please significantly review the literate of cocreation (Ceccagnoli, Forman, Huang, & Wu, 2012; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Sun & Im, 2015).

 

3/ Term: “digital twin platform network” is an ugly term, where is a network? Where are the ties? I believe that the term of “platform” is enough, or “platform ecosystem” (Ceccagnoli et al., 2012)

 

4/ Mechanism: if you like to answer “how-to” question, you may need to add the related literature on how to build business models (Sun, Xiao, Zhang, & Zhao, 2018).

 

5/ Who is the major stakeholders and beneficiaries in this sustainable business model (Lee, Spanjol, & Sun, 2019)? I feel that Figure 4 is good on environmental impacts. But how to measure these social impacts (Im & Sun, 2015)? You need the data to exam these social impacts.

 

6/ Discussion: please address your contributions in the discussion section. And put the conclusion in the separated section at the final. The discussion and conclusion sections should pick up the research question presented in the introductory section.

 

7/Finally, the paper needs a thorough language check.

 

Overall, I think you have a good story to start with and some very interesting findings. However, the paper falls short on writing and theorizing. I encourage you to take a step back and invest sufficient time and effort in addressing these fundamental challenges.

 

References

Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., Huang, P., & Wu, D. J. 2012. Cocreation of value in a platform ecosystem: The case of enterprise software. MIS Quarterly, 36(1): 263-290.

Lee, R. P., Spanjol, J., & Sun, S. L. 2019. Social innovation in an interconnected world: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(6): 662-670.

Prahalad, C. K. & Ramaswamy, V. 2004. Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3): 5-14.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

   Thank you very much for your comments. We have revised it according to your suggestions, and hope it can meet your approval. Please see the attachment of response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your hard work in adopting my comments and revising the papper. I have some nig and minor issues below: Big issues: 1/ The cocial impact part on line 557-561 is not relevant to digital twin platform network, please get the right metrics; 2/ Whille the authors accliam that digital twin platform network goes beyond a single product life cycle, please use the literature of Generative Capability in the IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. Minors: 3/Abstract: I have not seen the content of "compares with other two home appliance enterprises" (line 18) in the mansecript. 4/Citation: "Sunny" (in line 401) and reference #701 obviously are not surname. Please correct it; Good luck! 3/

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments. We have studied your suggestions and revised the manuscript accordingly. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf