Research on the Impact of BMI on Enterprise Performance Based on the Antecedence of Risk Perception
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for this interesting research. This study aims to investigate the effects of organizational capabilities and implementation of a profit- or growth-oriented strategy on the overall performance of a firm, as concretized in BMI. Hereby are some comments that may help you improve on it:
1) Abstract
The last three sentences are not consistent with the text. Please check again and correct them.
2) Introduction
Regarding research aims, some of them are repeated and some of which are omitted. Please review again and revise according to the hypothesis.
3) Literature review
(1) Line 175, the authors mentioned seven dimensions of risk perception, what are the final six items used? How to choose them?
(2) Line 299~302, H3a and H3b are exactly the same as H2a and H2b, there is a mistake in the current form, please correct it.
(3) Regarding Section 2.3.4. “Interaction Between Efficiency BMI and Novelty BMI”, is this section intend to explore the relationship between them? If so, refine the paragraph so that it connects to the hypothesis; if not, please correct and refine the content.
(4) In Figure 1, there are two errors, H2b appears twice; the arrow between F3 and F4 is in the wrong direction.
(5) Regarding 3.2. “Variable Measurement”, that is the most ambiguous part of this article. I suggest the authors should correct them carefully. For example: Line 353, this study consists of four or five primary constructs? Line 363, regarding firm performance, what are the four items to measure? Line 371, regarding risk perception, what are the six items to measure?
4) Findings
Refer to the research findings, the authors mentioned that “In SMEs that are technology-based, management MBI is mainly represented by one management strategy, which includes a technology strategy, a strategy for the environment, and a long-term strategy.” How this finding link with the abstract addressed “the effects of organizational capabilities and implementation of a profit- or growth-oriented strategy on the overall performance of a firm.”? I suggest that the authors should clarify this key point.
Regarding Table 4, the last hypothesis, the authors should explain why this result and discuss more.
5) Format
Regarding format, the references used should be reviewed again and fine-tuned according to the format required by this journal.
I hope that these notes are helpful in reviewing your article.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The last three sentences are not consistent with the text. Please check again and correct them.
Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have revised the abstract once again. We hope the current form of the abstract is much better than the one we had before.
Point 2: Regarding research aims, some of them are repeated and some of which are omitted. Please review again and revise according to the hypothesis.
Response: We have revised the research aims part again on Page#3 in Line#134-138 and add more details in sub-heading “Background and Motivation” and “Contribution and Paper Organization”. In these sub-heading we have covered the all literature with their significant contribution in business model innovation domain along with their gaps. We hope the current form of the introduction section is much better than the previous one.
Point 3: Line 175, the authors mentioned seven dimensions of risk perception, what are the final six items used? How to choose them?
Response: We're so grateful that you figure out our mistake, so we're grateful. The six dimensions of risk perception include financial risk, privacy risk, time risk, social risk, operational risk, physical risk, and psychological risk. It is also important to note that, as we mentioned in our article, other scholars have added dimensions such as source risk, delivery risk, and green risk based on the characteristics of the research object. Our paper proposes that enterprises adopt sustainable strategies based on the dimensions summarized by previous scholars based on their perception of risk.
Point 4: Line 299~302, H3a and H3b are exactly the same as H2a and H2b, there is a mistake in the current form, please correct it.
Response: Your suggestion is greatly appreciated. Based on your suggestion in our manuscript, we have revised these two hypothesis sentences (H3a and H3b), and we believe the updated version is much better than the original.
Point 5: Regarding Section 2.3.4. “Interaction Between Efficiency BMI and Novelty BMI”, is this section intend to explore the relationship between them? If so, refine the paragraph so that it connects to the hypothesis; if not, please correct and refine the content.
Response: The suggestion you made is greatly appreciated. Yes, Section 2.3.4, entitled "Interaction Between Efficiency BMI and Novelty BMI," this section intends to explore this relationship. We have revised these two paragraphs following your suggestions in our manuscript. We are confident that the updated version is much better.
Point 6: In Figure 1, there are two errors, H2b appears twice; the arrow between F3 and F4 is in the wrong direction.
Response: We are grateful that you figured out our mistake. In response to your suggestion, we corrected the direction of the arrow between F3 and F4 and updated the figure with high-resolution images. As an additional service, high-resolution images will be provided to the editor upon request so that readers can see the images. We hope the current image form is much better than the previous one for better understanding.
Point 7: Regarding 3.2. “Variable Measurement”, that is the most ambiguous part of this article. I suggest the authors should correct them carefully. For example: Line 353, this study consists of four or five primary constructs? Line 363, regarding firm performance, what are the four items to measure? Line 371, regarding risk perception, what are the six items to measure?
Response: Thank you for coming up with the correct answer to our mistake. The study consists of four primary constructs, and regarding firm performance, there are four items measured: firm performance, risk perception, efficiency BMI, and novelty BMI. Our risk perception measures were based on four items Rehman and Anwar (2019) used, for which 0.70 reliability was demonstrated. The items have been validated in emerging firms and have been found to have satisfactory convergent validity and composite reliability. The following is an example of a standard procedure for identifying significant risks and opportunities, and these sentences have been corrected in the manuscript. We have measured four items regarding risk perception, including:
- As part of our firm's risk management strategy, we have a policy to address significant risks that could affect the firm's ability to achieve its strategic goals.
- There are standard procedures in place for identifying significant risks and opportunities.
- How risks and opportunities should be managed is determined by analysing them.
- Implementing risk-reduction measures is governed by standard procedures.
Point 8: Refer to the research findings, the authors mentioned that “In SMEs that are technology-based, management MBI is mainly represented by one management strategy, which includes a technology strategy, a strategy for the environment, and a long-term strategy.” How this finding link with the abstract addressed “the effects of organizational capabilities and implementation of a profit- or growth-oriented strategy on the overall performance of a firm.”? I suggest that the authors should clarify this key point. Regarding Table 4, the last hypothesis, the authors should explain why this result and discuss more.
Response: I appreciate your question. As we mentioned in the research findings section, management MBI is primarily represented by one management strategy, which includes a technology strategy, an environmental strategy, and a long-term strategy. In other words, it is the effects of organizational capabilities and the implementation of a profit- or growth-oriented design on a company's overall performance. Regarding Table 4, the last hypothesis had a value of 0.05, meaning the value was less than 0.025, indicating that it was also significant. Therefore, we did not discuss it further.
Point 9: Regarding format, the references used should be reviewed again and fine-tuned according to the format required by this journal.
Response: Your suggestion is greatly appreciated. We have revised the references again based on your suggestions, and now all the references are formatted according to the journal's requirements. The current version, we hope, provides a much better experience than the references.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors:
Although the research topics are relevant, the analysis is in g:
1. Content: the topic should be introduced with more detail consideration of existing literature.
2. Novelty: Based on a more extensive literature with comparison of existing analysis and outcomes based on case studies,
3. Contribution: the contribution to the existing body of knowlege is recommended to be described specifically.
4. Research design: the questionnaire should be explained in terms of definition as well as to determine why there almost half of invalid questionnaires.
5. Research design: the terms, specifically concerning the hypothesis should be clearly defined. Moreover, the term "SME" has a different meaning with regard to the company characteristics depeding on the country. For that reason, 999 employees are a SME in one country while in others 251 is not. This factor as a term should be take in consideration at least when analyzing the validity in other environments, implications, and limitations of the research.
6. Methods: the methodology should be described in terms of its selection and how they are selected before section 4, maybe extending 3.2. This means the methods applied in tables 1-4 should be defined in advance to specify for what are they chosen and how the results will be interpretated.
7. Results are recommended to be analyzed more in detail as well as the treatment process of data from origin to end as well as the potential follow-up of it.
8. In section 5, it is recommended to change its name to discussion. Moreover, the elements in this section need a more deep analysis of existing body of knowledge as there are approaches to for instance address risk management in innovation processes.
9. It is recommended to integrate sections 6 and 7 in a conclusions section including the research and empirical outcomes addresing the research gap.
Best regards
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Content: the topic should be introduced with more detail consideration of existing literature.
Response: We have revised the introduction again and added more details in the "Background and Motivation" subheadings and "Contribution and Paper Organization" on Page#2 in Lines #50-72. Throughout these sub-headings, we have covered all literature contributing to business model innovation (BMI) and its gaps. As compared to the previous introduction, we hope the current one is much better.
Point 2: Novelty: Based on a more extensive literature with comparison of existing analysis and outcomes based on case studies,
Response: Your suggestion is greatly appreciated. Based on recently published studies, we have revised the extensive literature and compared existing analyses and outcomes. Furthermore, on Page#2, in Lines #50-72. we have added more details under the "Background and Motivation" subheadings and "Contribution and Paper Organization and Hypotheses Development on Page#4,5, in Lines #187-229." We have covered all literature about business model innovation and its gaps. Compared to the previous literature review, we hope this one is much stronger.
Point 3: Contribution: the contribution to the existing body of knowledge is recommended to be described specifically.
Response: Your suggestion is greatly appreciated. We have revised our manuscript again based on your recommendations. The main contribution in section 1.1 has been clarified and added again on Page#3 in Lines#126-143 for better understanding by the readers. We believe that the contribution appears in its current form much better than in its previous form.
Point 4: Research design: the questionnaire should be explained in terms of definition as well as to determine why there almost half of invalid questionnaires.
Response: My sincere thanks go out to you for your suggestions. An appendix has been attached to the questionnaire; it is described in the revised version, including specific items. All variables are from mature scales. As a result, this study adds intermediate variables to the previous research framework. These intermediaries can verify previous research on the one hand and guarantee the validity and reliability of the measurement on the other. To identify who developed the scale, the third chapter lists their names. Pilot tests were also conducted to verify the reliability and validity of the items to ensure their reliability and validity. In addition, lines 656-690 on page 15 provide additional details.
Point 5: Research design: the terms, specifically concerning the hypothesis should be clearly defined. Moreover, the term "SME" has a different meaning with regard to the company characteristics depending on the country. For that reason, 999 employees are a SME in one country while in others 251 is not. This factor as a term should be taken in consideration at least when analyzing the validity in other environments, implications, and limitations of the research.
Response: Your comments regarding this article are greatly appreciated. I am grateful for your kind suggestions. The hypotheses section has been revised again, and more details about how the hypothesis was developed have been added, including aspects of business model design, a moderating role for the environment in business model design, and firm performance. In addition, we have revised the implications and limitations and added them to the conclusion section. Additionally, we believe that the updated version will provide more discussion for readers and look better.
Point 6: Methods: the methodology should be described in terms of its selection and how they are selected before section 4, maybe extending 3.2. This means the methods applied in tables 1-4 should be defined in advance to specify for what are they chosen and how the results will be interpretated.
Response: Thanks for taking the time to comment on this article. Your kind suggestions are greatly appreciated. We have described the research methodology used in the manuscript. We collected data about factors affecting high-tech SMEs' competitive advantage. The design of the research methodology is formulated through several successive stages, including data collection and sampling, research design, sampling process, questionnaire design, data collection method, and statistical analysis. In causal effect research, we examine how independent variables affect dependent variables. The manuscript also discusses the sampling frame, sampling method, sample size, data sources, measurement instrument, data collection method, and data analysis. Based on your recommendation, we have explained the methodology on Page#10 of Lines#443-481.
Point 7: Results are recommended to be analysed more in detail as well as the treatment process of data from origin to end as well as the potential follow-up of it.
Response: We would greatly appreciate any comments you may have regarding this article. My sincere thanks go out to you for your kind suggestions. Reliability analysis was carried out by spss22.0 data analysis software to optimize the measurement items of the formal survey questionnaire to ensure reliability and validity. The analysis of the results on Page#12 of Lines#515-531 has been done based on your recommendation and the treatment process of the data applied to Page#10 of Lines#443-481. Our updated article version will also provide more discussion for readers, and we believe it will look much better.
Point 8: In section 5, it is recommended to change its name to discussion. Moreover, the elements in this section need a deeper analysis of existing body of knowledge as there are approaches to for instance address risk management in innovation processes.
Response: Please accept my sincere thanks for your suggestion. We have changed the name of section 5 to the discussion in response to your suggestion. As we addressed in the discussion section on Page#13 in Lines #535-563, risk management in innovation processes is discussed in detail. Additionally, we hope the updated version will look better and provide more discussion for readers.
Point 9: It is recommended to integrate sections 6 and 7 in a conclusions section including the research and empirical outcomes addressing the research gap.
Response: It is greatly appreciated that you made this suggestion. In response to your suggestion, we incorporated sections 6 and 7 into a conclusions section that included research and empirical results to address the research gap. We have discussed the details of the limitations and future directions in the conclusion section. In our limitations and future research directions section, we summarized the gaps and limitations in different environments, scenarios, etc. We believe that the overall discussion of all policy gaps is helpful to the reader and that it has a better aesthetic feel than the previous version.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
There are still some comments that may help you improve on it:
1) Literature review
(1) Regarding Section 2.4.3. please clarity “Interaction Between Efficiency BMI and Novelty BMI” is right or not. Should they revise to “The relationship between risk perception and Efficiency BMI and Novelty BMI”.
(2) In Line 349~350, please clarity again H3a and H3b based on the literature review of their construct.
(3) In Figure 1, there is still one error, the arrow direction between Firm performance and Novelty BMI is wrong.
I hope that these notes are helpful in reviewing your article.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Regarding Section 2.4.3. please clarity “Interaction Between Efficiency BMI and Novelty BMI” is right or not. Should they revise to “The relationship between risk perception and Efficiency BMI and Novelty BMI”.
Response: I greatly appreciate the suggestions you made. Following your suggestion, we have revised Section 2.3.4, entitled "Interaction Between Efficiency BMI and Novelty BMI," to "The relationship between risk perception and Efficiency BMI and Novelty BMI." in our manuscript. We believe the revised version is much stronger.
Point 2: In Line 349~350, please clarity again H3a and H3b based on the literature review of their construct.
Response: The suggestion you have made is greatly appreciated. Our manuscript has been revised based on your suggestions in the literature review. We have revised Section 2.4.3 again and updated H3a and H3b based on the literature review to provide a clearer understanding for the reader. We believe the updated version is much better than our original draft.
Point 3: In Figure 1, there is still one error, the arrow direction between Firm performance and Novelty BMI is wrong.
Response: Thank you very much for pointing out that our mistake had been made. We appreciate your help. The direction of the arrow connecting a firm's performance to the novelty BMI has been corrected in response to your suggestion. The figure has been updated with high-resolution images to illustrate the point further. We hope the current image form will make understanding the content much easier than the previous one.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors:
Although the paper has been significantly improved, it is needed that some adjustments and recommendations are considered before accepting:
4. Research design: the questionnaire should be explained in terms of definition as well as to determine why there almost half of invalid questionnaires. In the current appendix, it is not self-explained what it is meant, therefore it is recommended to revise its explanation and structure.
5. It is recommended to add the limitation concerning the company size under study as well as the limitations concerning the scope. This factor as a term should be taken in consideration at least when analyzing the validity in other environments, implications, and limitations of the research.
6. It is recommended to extend maybe adding some schemes so it is clear the path from the questionnaire to the results thanks to the methodology applied.
7. It is recommended to add details about the results as pages 11 and 12 are still mostly tables.
8. Section 5 with the added text does not linked neccesarily to the topic in discussion. It is recommended to focus more on the topic the risks models or methods during innovation processes.
9. It is recommended to extend the limitations according to the comments.
Best regards
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 4: Research design: the questionnaire should be explained in terms of definition as well as to determine why there almost half of invalid questionnaires. In the current appendix, it is not self-explained what it is meant, therefore it is recommended to revise its explanation and structure.
Response: Thanks a lot for your suggestion. We really appreciate it. We have added an explanation in terms of definitions (see page#14, line#583). Because the questionnaire was originally developed based on foreign theoretical research, and certain misunderstandings were encountered due to translating the questionnaire into Chinese, most earlier questionnaires were not used.
Table 5. Hypothesis test results.
|
Hypothesis |
Results |
|
Firm performance is positively affected by risk perception. |
supported |
|
SME high-tech firms perform better when they have an efficiency BMI. |
supported |
|
SME innovation performance is positively affected by novelty MBI. |
supported |
|
High-tech SMEs' firm performance is positively affected by efficiency BMI. |
supported |
|
Novelty BMI positively influences firm performance in high-tech SMEs. Figure 1 shows the theoretical model of the study. |
supported |
Point 5: It is recommended to add the limitation concerning the company size under study as well as the limitations concerning the scope. This factor as a term should be taken in consideration at least when analysing the validity in other environments, implications, and limitations of the research.
Response: Thank you for taking the time to comment on this article. Thank you for your kind suggestions. We have revised every aspect of the limitations and future research directions. We have added more details about your suggestions regarding company size. We have already analyzed validity in other environments, including aspects of business model design and a moderating role for the environment in the business model in our conclusion part on Page#16 of Lines#720-751. In addition to providing more clarity for readers, we hope the updated version looks better and is easier to understand.
Point 6: It is recommended to extend maybe adding some schemes so it is clear the path from the questionnaire to the results thanks to the methodology applied.
Response: Our sincere gratitude goes out to you for making this suggestion. More schemes have been added, and the process from the questionnaire to the results has been described more clearly. Please refer to the following page#9 and lines#401 to 477 for your reference.
Point 7: It is recommended to add details about the results as pages 11 and 12 are still mostly tables.
Response: Your recommendations are greatly appreciated. On page #11, we have added more explanations between the tables at lines #517-583 where there are more explanations. The updated version is expected to look better than the previous version.
Point 8: Section 5 with the added text does not linked neccesarily to the topic in discussion. It is recommended to focus more on the topic the risks models or methods during innovation processes.
Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. I want to express my sincere gratitude to you. On Page#15 in Lines #629-693, we re-reviewed Section5 of the text and added more relevant data relating to the risk models or methods used during innovation processes. This is the part of the discussion section, which we addressed as subsection 5.1. We hope the updated version will look better and provide more discussion for the readers.
Point 9: It is recommended to extend the limitations according to the comments.
Response: It is a pleasure to receive your comments about this article. I appreciate your kind suggestions. Every aspect of the limitations and the future directions have been revised, and more details about your suggestions regarding company size have been added, as well as their validity in other environments analyzed, including aspects of business model design and a moderating role for the environment in the business model on Lines#752-810 of Page#17. This updated version provides more clarity and facilitates understanding for readers, as well as looking better and being easier to read.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
