Building an Integrated Digital Transformation System Framework: A Design Science Research, the Case of FedUni

Reviewer 1

Response

Improvement suggestions:

1

- The introduction section should be improved to clearly present the originality and implications of this study.

The introduction section has been revised and reorganized. More references added.

2

- Authors present two research questions. However, it is not clear how these two research questions are relevant. Please explore it better based on the literature before presenting these two RQs.

We have revised and linked research questions to the literature in the Introduction section (Section 1)

3

- This sentence is related to the previous paragraph “According to Congdon [11] “Digital transformation…” Please link to the previous paragraph.

We agree and have updated

4

- Authors note “Moreover, digital transformation requires the acceptance by the enterprise’s employees since it frequently has a major change in the operations and responsibilities of employees”. This sentence is highly relevant and should be better explored and associated with the idea of bottom-up innovation.

This sentence from literature has been explored through literature (in Digital Transformation, section 2). It is also validated through empirical research. Based on empirical research, this point is highlighted in the Organizational Insights section (in section 6.2). 

5

- The authors should address and explore the concept of digital innovation in the literature review section.

The digital innovation concept was explored and added to the introduction (Section 1) and theoretical foundation (section 3).

6

- Curiously the space between some paragraphs in section 3 is inconsistent. Please correct it.

Corrected

7

- The quality of Figure 2 can be improved.

A new figure has been developed and included in the text.

8

- Apparently the authors believe that the use of a mixed-methods approach is a good option to perform studies in this field based in the literature review. However, they only adopt a qualitative approach. Why?

Justifications for using qualitative research has been added to the Methodology section (section 4).

9

- The authors don’t present the results of their study. No methods are used to explore the qualitative results of the study.

Results of the study have been added to:

·       section 5

·       more specifically in section 6

10

- It is not clear what the interview questions are, nor their respective dimensions.

More details about interviews have been added to the Methodology section (section 4).

11

- The authors don’t present any discussion of the results.

Discussion of the results has been added as section 6.

12

- Figure 4 has pertinent content that should be present in the results section. However, not in the conclusions section.

Discussion related to Figure 4 is moved to the results section (section 6)

13

- The conclusions also fail to highlight the theoretical and practical contributions of the studies.

The conclusion is updated to clearly highlight the theoretical and practical contributions of the study.

1

The manuscript is somewhat confusing. The title and abstract present a larger study than it really is.

The abstract does not make an accurate statement of the content of the manuscript, it seems more like a statement of claims. In addition, the different parts that an abstract should have are not clearly seen:

1. Research problem.
2. Participants.
3. Essential characteristics of the study methodology.
4. Results.
5. Conclusions and implications or applications.

The manuscript has been revised.

The title of the paper has been changed to reflect the objective of the paper.

Abstract has been updated

2

The methodology used is insufficient to respond to the pretensions indicated in the title and the abstract. The sample used, number of interviewees, is too small to draw conclusions such as those presented.

Finally, the writing also shows orthotypographic errors that cannot be included in an academic text of this level and that are the result of the authors' lack of care in revising it.

The methodology has been improved.

More details about interviews have been added to the paper.

The title of the paper has been changed to reflect the objective of the paper.

Done. Thank you

1

It is a description I think it is more a teaching material then research, I miss the quantitative part of the research.

 Also, the reference style must bi fit to the journal and some additional new references must be included.

Discussion of the results added as section 6.

Paper and references have been formatted as per the template of the journal

2

The subject is interesting, but the contribution is limited and I miss the empirical part.

They should be clearer about their contribution to the existing literature that has already addressed the themes of "digital transformation". Why we need a further study on this theme? How they enrich the existing findings? why this case study is relevant?

Organizational Insights based on results of the empirical study added as section 6.2

Unique contributions of this research has been reported in the conclusion section.

3

I also believe that the authors should reorganize the arguments presented throughout the study.

In its actual shape, the paper is really long with so disparate materials.

All sections are reorganized and updated. However, a major reorganization has been made to Sections 4,5 and 6.

A lot of text has been removed. However, more references and literature reviews have been added to address other comments.

4

Discussion. One aspect is still missing - a comparison to related work. It is important to state if the authors' results are different/similar to other studies in the same country or in other countries.

This comparison is reported in the introduction and conclusion sections.

1

The limitation of the paper lies in paper structures and its presentation as it has to be improved.

The Paper is restructured.

Sections 4,5 and 6 are reorganized.

2

In first section, the research questions have to be moved before the paper structure.

We agree and have updated

3

The authors have to explain what is the different between the proposed paper and their previously publish one: Majdalawieh, M. (2019). Advancing digital transformation: Integrated digital transformation framework for a successful deployment.

The published paper is referenced. The main goal of the paper was to put tools together without following a specific methodology. Based on the feedback from the audience, the authors have made major revisions to the paper including the structure of the paper, title, abstract, methodologies, testing the model with the FedUni, enhancing the analysis, the conclusion, and adding one more test round with faculty and staff from the FedUni different units and departments.

4

The related works aren't enough and a new recently published paper has to be cited, e.g:

Bellantuono, N., Nuzzi, A., Pontrandolfo, P., & Scozzi, B. (2021). Digital transformation models for the I4. 0 transition: Lessons from the change management literature. Sustainability, 13(23), 12941.

Alotaibi, Y. (2020). A New Secured E-Government Efficiency Model for Sustainable Services Provision. Journal of Information Security and Cybercrimes Research, 3(1), 75-96.

Khan, H. H., Malik, M. N., Zafar, R., Goni, F. A., Chofreh, A. G., Klemeš, J. J., & Alotaibi, Y. (2020). Challenges for sustainable smart city development: A conceptual framework. Sustainable Development, 28(5), 1507-1518.

Alotaibi, Y. (2020, March). Automated Business Process Modelling for Analyzing Sustainable System Requirements Engineering. In 2020 6th International Conference on Information Management (ICIM) (pp. 157-161). IEEE.

Authors have done more detailed and latest research and accordingly added 18 more references to related work.

Some of these references have been added to section 4

5

Methodology section is descriptive and fail to support the authors idea.

We agree and have updated. The methodology section (section 4 in the previous version) has been improved and reduced from 3843 words to 2509 words (Sections 5 and 6).

6

Figure 2 isn't clear and its quality is very poor. It has to be improved and explain in details.

Done.

7

The discussion is missing and it has to be added before conclusion.

Discussion of the results added as section 6.

8

As a survey paper, it will be a good idea if you can add a new section for learn lessons before conclusion.

Discussion of the results added as section 6.

9

The paper has to be proofread.

Done.

I consider there have been quite important improvements made by the authors. However, some points remain that deserve some improvement:

Thank you for your feedback in round 1 that helped us to significantly improve the manuscript.

1. Authors shouldn’t support this sentence in just one reference: “Current digital transformation approaches are not well-established, and the potential has not yet been realized [17].”

Two more references are added to support this sentence (on page 2):

1.     Ines Mergel; Noella Edelmann; Nathalie Haug; Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews, Government Information Quarterly, Volume 36, Issue 4, 2019, 101385, ISSN 0740-624X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002.

2.      Osmundsen Karen; Jon Iden; Bendik Bygstad. "Digital Transformation: Drivers, Success Factors, and Implications." 2018, MCIS.

1. Please confirm that Figure 1 is original. In my opinion it is based in other published studies in the field of change management process.

Thank you, a note of the source has been, added.

1. Authors should also better explore in the literature review the several levels of digital transformation maturity.

Literature on digital transformation maturity added to section 3 (line 184 – 188)

Added following related references:

1.     Issa, Ahmad; Bumin Hatiboglu; Andreas Bildstein; Thomas Bauernhansl. "Industrie 4.0 roadmap: Framework for digital transformation based on the concepts of capability maturity and alignment." Procedia Cirp 72 (2018): 973-978.

2.     Borovkov, A.; Rozhdestvenskiy, O.; Pavlova, E.; Glazunov, A.; Savichev, K. Key Barriers of Digital Transformation of the High-Technology Manufacturing: An Evaluation Method. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11153. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011153

3.     Teichert, Roman. "Digital transformation maturity: A systematic review of literature." Acta universitatis agriculturae et silviculturae mendelianae brunensis (2019).

1. Please clarify if this study adopted a semi-structured approach or a closed-structured approach.

We used a semi-structured approach. We have clarified this further in section 4.4 (line 430 to 431)

1. Figure 4 is a key component in this manuscript but unfortunately only gives too superficial recommendations. It is mandatory to review and adapt it considering the specificities of this case study.

Thank you. The figure has been updated to reflect the outcome of the research.

The authors have included improvements in the text that facilitate its comprehension. The effort made is appreciated.

Thank you for your feedback in round 1 that helped us to significantly improve the manuscript.

Thank you for the revised version of the paper. I have just some minor suggestions.

Thank you for your feedback in round 1 that helped us to significantly improve the manuscript.

Maybe you can add some additional references:

Akram, U., Fülöp, M. T., Tiron-Tudor, A., Topor, D. I., & Căpușneanu, S. (2021). Impact of digitalization on customers’ well-being in the pandemic period: Challenges and opportunities for the retail industry. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(14), 7533.

Ionescu, C. A., Fülöp, M. T., Topor, D. I., Duică, M. C., Stanescu, S. G., Florea, N. V., ... & Coman, M. D. (2022). Sustainability Analysis, Implications, and Effects of the Teleworking System in Romania. Sustainability, 14(9), 5273.

Gallego, A., & Kurer, T. (2022). Automation, Digitalization, and Artificial Intelligence in the Workplace: Implications for Political Behavior. Annual Review of Political Science, 25.

Mostaghel, R., Oghazi, P., Parida, V., & Sohrabpour, V. (2022). Digitalization driven retail business model innovation: Evaluation of past and avenues for future research trends. Journal of Business Research, 146, 134-145.

Good luck!

These references have been added and all the references are reordered according to the additions

The authors have considered all my commands. The paper can be accepted in current form.

Thank you for your feedback in round 1 that helped us to significantly improve the manuscript.

Guarantee that the label of Figure 1 appears in the same page as the figure.

Thank you. Now the figure and the label are in the same page.

- Review this sentence: “Such development processes should be transdisciplinary using a balanced mix of traditional system development approaches (like Agile SDLC, Waterfall SDLC) and creatively designed approaches (like design thinking) [2124].”. It is [21,24] or [21-24].

Thank you. Corrected to [21,24].

- Please avoid use the excessive use of “aim” word. For instance: “This research aims” -> This research intends….

Thank you.

The word “aims” appears three times, we changed one of them to intends:

“This research intends to deliver a better integrated system framework to produce a product or a service that best meets user/customer needs with minimum waste and time and enables the business to achieve efficiency compared with island and traditional sequential approaches.”