Interplay of External and Internal Knowledge: Business Model Innovation Analysis in Chinese Publicly Traded Film Companies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The Interplay of External and Internal Knowledge: Business Model Innovation Analysis in Chinese Publicly Traded Film Companies 7.07.2022
The paper is focused on the presentation Business Model Innovation in Chinese Publicly Traded Film Companies in the context of its impact on External and Internal Knowledge. First, the theoretical conceptual model is described, and next it is empirically verified using data from 36 Chinese publicly traded 13 film companies and PLS-SEM. The basic model elements are presented in Figure 1. The model analyzed relationships between External knowledge and Ennterprise business model innovation, Knowledge creation, Knowledge search, Environmental turbulence, and Management attention. Partial Least Squares (PLS) is adopted to analyze the interrelationships among variables.
The research hypotheses are properly presented in section 2. The authors proposed 5 main hypotheses, while two of them are divided into 2 (H4a, H4b, H5a, H5b). Figure 2 has to be reconstructed.
The introduction clearly states the problem being investigated. But the sample and methodology are not precisely described. The authors do not precisely notice what is the novelty of the paper. The paper in such form can not be accepted. It does not meet the standard of presentation in high-quality journals.
The work is interesting and has some valuable results for publication. Yet, after reading the paper carefully. I have the following observations and suggestions to improve the work quality
Comments and Suggestions for Author.
1. The description of the building and presentation result does not fit the standard description PLS-based model.
2. The method of citation does not fit the requirements of the journal.
3. Please describe clearly the mediating variable and moderating variables.
4. PLS path models are formally defined by two sets of linear equations: the measurement model and the structural model. The measurement model specifies the relations between a construct and its observed indicators whereas the structural model specifies the relationships between the constructs. Please describe more exactly both models.
5. Bootstrapping is the process of drawing a large number of re-samples with replacements from the original sample, and then estimating the model parameters for each bootstrap re-sample. Please notice if you used or did not bootstrapping for the evaluation model. If yes describe results, if not notice why not?
6. The conclusions and discussion are very weak, and future research and limitation of the study.
I hope that the articles can be useful in improving the presentation of the results.
· Henseler, J., Hubona, G. and Ray, P.A. (2016), "Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: updated guidelines", Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 116 No. 1, pp. 2-20. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382
· Henseler, J., Sarstedt, M. Goodness-of-fit indices for partial least squares path modeling. Comput Stat 28, 565–580 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00180-012-0317-1
· Bido, D., da Silva, D., & Ringle, C. (2014). Structural Equation Modeling with the Smartpls. Brazilian Journal Of Marketing, 13(2). Retrieved October 19, 2015, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2676422
Author Response
1. The description of the building and presentation result does not fit the standard description PLS-based model.
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. After a serious discussion between the authors, we adopted more clarified correlation and regression analysis by means of SPSS in the revised version, which is more suitable for this research.
2. The method of citation does not fit the requirements of the journal.
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion, we have revised the citation to fit the requirements of the journal.
3. Please describe clearly the mediating variable and moderating variables.
Answer: Thanks for this sharp question. In the past two weeks, we authors conducted more interviews to the managerial personnel to readjust the variables. After several times discussion and confirmation from some scholars in this research field, we improved the independent variables, they are External knowledge search, Internal knowledge creation, Environmental volatility and Management attention.
4. PLS path models are formally defined by two sets of linear equations: the measurement model and the structural model. The measurement model specifies the relations between a construct and its observed indicators whereas the structural model specifies the relationships between the constructs. Please describe more exactly both models.
Answer: Thank you professor, thanks for your direction. We improved the measurement model and the structural model in the revised version. This time the measurement model specified the relations between the construct and its observed indicators, in addition, the structural model specified the relationships between the constructs.
5. Bootstrapping is the process of drawing a large number of re-samples with replacements from the original sample, and then estimating the model parameters for each bootstrap re-sample. Please notice if you used or did not bootstrapping for the evaluation model. If yes describe results, if not notice why not?
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. In the past weeks, we authors conducted another cycle of questionaire survey, this time we sent another 400 questionaries to the managerial personnel of Chinese publicly traded film companies and 354 were valid. Through SPSS analysis we found that the previous 256 questionaire and the latter 354, they had the same analysis results. After discussion among the authors, we put the 610 questionaires together and made the final correlation and regression analysis and the results were employed in the revised paper.
6. The conclusions and discussion are very weak, and future research and limitation of the study.
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion, we authors improved the conclusions and discussion to strengthen this part.
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The author must follow the internationally-accepted citation system in which references are cited within the text. For example, "...extended the core content (Timmers, 1998)".
2. Please, include the year in "Afuah and Tucci proposed..." to be "Afuah and Tucci (2002) proposed...". ALL references of this kind are wrongly cited. Please, include all years!.
3. Please, review your English with external help if needed.
4. Please note that Figure 2 depicts the relationship among the hypotheses and NOT the conceptual framework of your paper. Please, change the title.
5. The explanation of Table 3 is incomplete, as the author only explains Cronbach's alpha, CR and AVE. Please, define broadly the rest of the data shown in Table 3.
6. I suggest the author include a legend in Tables 3 and 4.
7. The paper must include a Discussion section (now missing). I suggest the author use the Conclusion section as part of the Discussion section and write a new Conclusions section by adding research limitations and future research lines.
8. The References section is missing. The author must add it.
9. Please, follow APA. See other papers published on Sustainability!!
10. I suggest the author include the questionnaire used as an Annex.
Author Response
1. The author must follow the internationally-accepted citation system in which references are cited within the text. For example, "...extended the core content (Timmers, 1998)".
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. We have improved all the citations in the article.
2. Please, include the year in "Afuah and Tucci proposed..." to be "Afuah and Tucci (2002) proposed...". ALL references of this kind are wrongly cited. Please, include all years!.
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. We have corrected all the wrongly cited forms in the article.
3. Please, review your English with external help if needed.
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. We authors sent the paper to several supervisors in our School, and we have revised the English based on their advice.
4. Please note that Figure 2 depicts the relationship among the hypotheses and NOT the conceptual framework of your paper. Please, change the title.
Answer: Thank you, professor. You gave us so detailed and valuable suggestions. We have corrected the title of Figure 2.
5. The explanation of Table 3 is incomplete, as the author only explains Cronbach's alpha, CR and AVE. Please, define broadly the rest of the data shown in Table 3.
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. We have improved this incomplete explanation with more data in Table 3, 4 and 5.
6. I suggest the author include a legend in Tables 3 and 4.
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised and improved this part.
7. The paper must include a Discussion section (now missing). I suggest the author use the Conclusion section as part of the Discussion section and write a new Conclusions section by adding research limitations and future research lines.
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. We have rewirtten the discussion and conclusion section, what's more, the research limitations and future research lines have been added.
8. The References section is missing. The author must add it.
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. We have added the References section.
9. Please, follow APA. See other papers published on Sustainability!!
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. We have improved and corrected the reference form.
10. I suggest the author include the questionnaire used as an Annex.
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. We have added the questionaire in the form of an Annex.
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper analyses the way in which external knowledge search and Internal knowledge creation influence business model innovation. To do this the paper collected and analyzed data from Chinese organization in the film industry. In general terms the manuscript topic is interesting, and the methodology is adequate. However different issues need to be addressed to reach publication. Below there is a description of these issues.
- Theoretical framing and contribution. After reading the manuscript I was wondering about the theory or theories the paper is contributing. There are different theoretical approaches from which the topic could be approached (Technology adoption, Knowledge flows, Knowledge translation, etc..). However, the manuscript does not clarify which theory is choosing, and therefore there is no clarity about to which theory is contributing to.
- In my view knowledge search cannot lead to business model innovation without adoption of such knowledge. Therefore, there is always a knowledge creation process involved.
- I kept wondering about the “so what” of the results. A section about the practical implication of results is required. Some examples could be useful.
- The authors indicate that “the Harman one-way method was used to analyze the homoscedasticity of the questionnaire and interview materials. The results showed that the variance contribution of all factors was less than 40%, indicating that the homoscedasticity of the questionnaire was not serious (page 11, lines 279-281). Please revise this assertion, as Harman’s single factor test is used to assess common method bias.
- Measurement model: Please add a header to the last columns of table 3 to indicate those numbers represent constructs’ correlations, and a note to indicate which ones are the square root of AVE.
- Structural model: Please add the R-square of Knowledge Creation and Business Model innovation, and make sure to include a discussion on how much the exogenous variables explain these two constructs
Author Response
Theoretical framing and contribution. After reading the manuscript I was wondering about the theory or theories the paper is contributing. There are different theoretical approaches from which the topic could be approached (Technology adoption, Knowledge flows, Knowledge translation, etc..). However, the manuscript does not clarify which theory is choosing, and therefore there is no clarity about to which theory is contributing to.
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. In the revised version, we tried to improved the Theoretical framing and contribution.
2. In my view knowledge search cannot lead to business model innovation without adoption of such knowledge. Therefore, there is always a knowledge creation process involved.
Answer: Thanks for your enlightening suggestions. The research design originally came from an film seminar in 2018 focusing on Chinese film enterprise BMI, the scholars made a consensus that the Chinese film enterprise BMI depended on two key factors, one is external knowledge search and the other is internal knowledge creation. The former emphasized on the knowledge sources, for example the Hollywood film production, the academic institutions, etc. While the latter focused on the internal reorganization, the knowledge digestion, etc. Therefore we employed the two concepts leading to BMI.
3. I kept wondering about the “so what” of the results. A section about the practical implication of results is required. Some examples could be useful.
Answer: Thanks for you valuable suggestion, it's very meaningful and deep for our paper. We have already added a practical implication of results in the last section.
4. The authors indicate that “the Harman one-way method was used to analyze the homoscedasticity of the questionnaire and interview materials. The results showed that the variance contribution of all factors was less than 40%, indicating that the homoscedasticity of the questionnaire was not serious (page 11, lines 279-281). Please revise this assertion, as Harman’s single factor test is used to assess common method bias.
Answer: Thank you, professor. We have revised the assertion in the new version.
5. Measurement model: Please add a header to the last columns of table 3 to indicate those numbers represent constructs’ correlations, and a note to indicate which ones are the square root of AVE.
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. We have improved the data in the newly revised version.
6. Structural model: Please add the R-square of Knowledge Creation and Business Model innovation, and make sure to include a discussion on how much the exogenous variables explain these two constructs.
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised and improved the structural model part. R-square of Knowledge Creation and Business Model innovation were added in the new version.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors improve the quality od the presentation the papier. On my opionion the manuscript van be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Dear Professor,
Thanks for your valuable suggestions. This time we polished the language under the help of the native speakers, also we improved the structure of the article.
Thanks so much.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have correctly included the suggestions received and corrected the errors of the previous version.
Author Response
Dear professor,
Thanks for your invaluable suggestions. For this newly revised version, we improved the language and the structure of the article. Thanks again.
Reviewer 3 Report
I thank the authors to quickly respond to my queries regarding the analysis methods. However, my queries about theoretical framing and contribution remains unanswered. I commend the authors to make a deeper reflection about the actions to take, and provide a response that reflect such reflection.
Author Response
Dear Professor,
Thanks for your suggestions, in the newly revised version, we have divided the Introduction part into two: (1) Literature Review; (2)Theoretical framing to make the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research;
What's more, we have added a new part Contributions and Limitations to show our theoretical and practical contributions as well as our limitations.
Also, we polished our language and improved the whole article.
Thanks professor, for the inspiration and suggestions from you.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors. Thank you for your responding to my queries. For the next revision I kindly ask you to provide detailed explanation of the changes made. The paper still has 3 issues to resolve
1. I believe there is a relationship between Knowledge search and Knowledge creation. Being the former an antecedent of the latter. This is also suggested by you in the discussion “Knowledge creation can effectively combine the found external knowledge with the internal knowledge of the enterprise, thus creating new ideas and new perspectives in the process of continuous experimentation, inspiring new value propositions”. However, the model proposed does not show this relationship.
2. The contributions of the paper are more contextual and less theoretical. Thank you for creating a contribution section. However, this section states again what was mentioned in the discussion. I suggest leaving a conclusion section that summarizes the study and provide in the discussion a detailed explanation about the theoretical contribution on the paper. For example, how your findings contribute to BMI and RBV theories.
3. There is still, since the first paragraph, grammar problems that affect the reading flow. Please ensure a proofreading of the paper after accepted.
Author Response
Dear professor,
Many thanks for your suggestions and directions! We have improved the paper in the following aspects:
Question: there is a relationship between Knowledge search and Knowledge creation. Being the former an antecedent of the latter. This is also suggested by you in the discussion “Knowledge creation can effectively combine the found external knowledge with the internal knowledge of the enterprise, thus creating new ideas and new perspectives in the process of continuous experimentation, inspiring new value propositions”.However, the model proposed does not show this relationship.
Answer: In the revised paper, we proposed a new Hypothesis (H3): Knowledge creation mediates the relationship between knowledge search and enterprise BMI. As to the testing of mediating role of knowledge creation between knowledge search and enterprise BMI, we adopted the method of stepwise regression. Finally we obtained the proportion of total effect that is mediated: 0.282, thus H3 was positively tested. Knowledge creation has played a role of mediation between KS and BMI. What’s more, the test was repeated 500 times with Bootstrap, Confidence intervals did not contain 0, indicating the presence of mediating effects.
Question: The contributions of the paper are more contextual and less theoretical. Thank you for creating a contribution section. However, this section states again what was mentioned in the discussion. I suggest leaving a conclusion section that summarizes the study and provide in the discussion a detailed explanation about the theoretical contribution on the paper. For example, how your findings contribute to BMI and RBV theories.
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. In the newly revised version, we changed the title of part 5 into "Conclusions" to summarize the study and changed the title of part 6 into "Discussion" to explain what our findings contribute to BMI and RBV theories.
Question: There is still, since the first paragraph, grammar problems that affect the reading flow. Please ensure a proofreading of the paper after accepted.
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion, we improved the grammar problems and sent the paper to the MDPI English editing service to further correct all the language problems, the service number is 48163.
We authors examined the whole paper including the abstract part, the main body and the referece part. Thanks a lot, professor, it's your suggestions that guide us to go further in this research, and we will do more in this field in the future.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
