Disruptive Factors in Product Portfolio Management: An Exploratory Study in B2B Manufacturing for Sustainable Transition

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Kindly see the PDF attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor spelling issues detected. Otherwise fine.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your review, which relates to the article entitled "Employee participation and outcomes during the privatisation of water in Ghana: 
external influences, discontinuous involvement and discriminatory Practices". Our paper refers to disruptive factors in product portfolio management. Apparently there was an error in the system, so that the review was incorrectly assigned / linked. We have therefore not considered your report any further.

Many thanks and best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study discussed a relevant and timely issue: the influence of disruptive factors on product portfolio management (PPM) in sectors of B2B manufacturing. In light of rapid technological growth and market changes, this study holds importance for both academic inquiry and practical application.

 The application of the Gioia methodology in conducting and analyzing semi-structured interviews provides valuable, qualitative insights into the B2B market dynamics, making it well-suited for scrutinizing how disruptive factors impact PPM. However, to enhance the reliability and depth of the study's conclusions, the incorporation of unstructured interviews is recommended.

 The study explored the critical role of generative AI. It underscored the necessity for creating adaptable evaluation frameworks that integrate cutting-edge, value-oriented KPIs, thus pushing the boundaries of existing research. The contributions of this study are pivotal for future research endeavors. Yet, it could have benefitted from a more thorough assessment of how universally applicable its findings are (issue of generalizability).

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our paper. At the beginning of the study, we conducted some unstructured interviews at trade fairs, as briefly described in the paper. These interviews, in combination with the literature research, provided the framework for the semi-structured questionnaire. We decided on the semi-structured interviews due to better comparability and focus. We ensured the general validity of the results by interviewing a sufficient number of experts until no new findings emerged. In order to ensure the reliability of the data, the text has been amended to include the following: "Data collection continued until saturation of the information content was reached. This was determined when additional interviews no longer identified any fundamentally new information or perspectives that contributed to the further development of the study results." Furthermore, we have incorporated a section on limitations in the discussion part, where we address this topic as well.

We would like to express our gratitude to you for your valuable feedback and wish you the best.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research topic is very interesting and promising. It examines the effects of disruptive factors on the evaluation and shaping of product portfolios in manufacturing companies in the B2B sector, and presents the effect of sustainability, digitalization, and servitization on Product Portfolio Management. More technical aspects were expected from this research with special concern on industrial and manufacturing facilities that have applied PPM.

If it is possible to concentrate more on the above mentioned types of facilities, the value of research will be elevated.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our paper. When selecting the interview partners, we ensured that we only included experts with a strong focus on industrial and manufacturing facilities. One of the two dimensions of action identified included a strong technical aspect regarding the use of generative AI in PPM. As our article otherwise fulfills all criteria according to your expert opinion, we have not made any further adjustments to the manuscript in this regard.

We would like to express our gratitude to you for your valuable feedback and wish you the best.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

‘Managing product portfolios is a strategic task for manufacturing companies [1].’ – why is it a strategic task? ‘Managing a diversified range of offerings is therefore gaining importance in B2B industries. [1,10,11]’ – it is unclear the particular contribution of [1,10,11]. The same here: ‘as a strategic response to this challenge [16–18]’, ‘Product managers, in contrast, are more focused on implementing individual product strategies [26–28]’, ‘PPM also includes services, hybrid product-service bundles, and digital offerings in the context of digitalization [29–32]’, ‘According to [28], [35] and [31], PPM has three main objectives: (1) maximizing the value of the portfolio, (2) ensuring strategic fit with corporate goals, and (3) balancing short-term profitability with long-term growth opportunities’, ‘decision-making processes regarding product portfolio strategy may not sufficiently represent disruptive factors [25,32,36,41,42]’, ‘A framework for PPM for generative AI does not yet exist and thus represents a further opportunity for research and industry [52,58–60]’, ‘A clearly defined PPM process was not listed as a separate dimension, as foundational works have already outlined PPM processes [1,26,62]’. ‘Various factors can have a disruptive effect on the product portfolio and thus lead to new challenges [42]’ – what are the new challenges? Half of the cited sources are not from peer reviewed journals.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback. Although we have already received two blinded reviews, we have nevertheless considered your comments.

The description of product portfolio management as a strategic task has been refined and expanded in the introduction.

The contribution of individual sources to the statements was reexamined. However, where several sources were cited, the statement was discussed and confirmed by the various sources, thereby reinforcing the theses.

In response to your point <'Various factors can have a disruptive effect on the product portfolio and thus lead to new challenges [42]' - what are the new challenges?>, we have added examples from the source to the text.

Some sources are not peer-reviewed, but have been deliberately included. This concerns, among other things, the linking of companies that are listed as examples and have published their climate neutrality targets on the website. Otherwise, the publication of the European Commission on the European climate targets was included and occasionally white papers from well-known management consultancies that have published the needs of industrial companies or market figures were (additionally) included. However, the majority of the sources are from peer-reviewed journals.

We would like to express our gratitude to you for your valuable feedback and wish you the best.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

We appreciate that the paper is well-organized and addresses an interesting topic. 

We make the following recommendations to the authors:

- to add at the end of the Introduction how the paper is structured (the main parts of the paper);

- to specify the research sampling method used in the study;

- to specify how were contacted  the experts to participate in the interview;

- to explain and argue the research validity  in the case of the use of ChatGPT as an interview, and to argue including from the ethical point of view/ethics of research;

- to explain what supplementary data was collected at the follow-up workshops or  beyond the interviews and how this data was used in the research: "In addition, two experts organized follow-up workshops to obtain more in-depth knowledge about the PPM in the two companies"; "* Discussions with these experts continued beyond the interviews to gain deeper insights into the companies' PPM."

- to explain how the 'trustworthiness' of the findings is ensured;

- to add the source below each figure and table;

- to specify if an was applied Informed Consent to the respondents;

-  to correct the typing errors - see Englisch (line 118); to capitalize the first letter to the name of four sections (lines 104-107).

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback. Although we have already received two blinded reviews, we have nevertheless considered your comments and recommendations:

-In the introduction, we have added a reference to the structure in the results section

-With regard to the research sampling method, we have made the following addition to the text: Data collection continued until saturation of the information content was reached. This was determined when additional interviews no longer identified any fundamentally new information or perspectives that contributed to the further development of the study results

-The experts were contacted via the German Engineering Federation (VDMA) or via the social media platform LinkedIn. This was also added to the paper

-In the Discussion we have added a part to explain and argue the research validity in the case of the use of ChatGPT: “Their study points out potential ethical concerns regarding the use of ChatGPT and similar tools in qualitative research. Therefore, they recommend using these tools only in combination with human experts. This allows the research to benefit from the strengths of both AI-driven insights and the depth and context provided by human experiences, as implemented in this study.”

-The additional workshops were not recorded and only provided the authors with a better understanding of how the product portfolio is implemented in the companies and how the disruptive factors affect this. However, no fundamentally new or different findings emerged. From the authors' point of view, the labeling is nevertheless useful, as the interview experts have a stronger emphases in the statements.

-The trustworthiness of the results was ensured using the Gioia method. The Gioia method is described as the most popular and widely accepted template for interpretive qualitative research due to its rigorous analytical process. This was described in the text and listed with another source that examined this topic in more detail.

-The source of the figure is indicated if it originates from or is based on another source (e.g. Data structure according to Gioia). If no source was named, then it is an own representation/table.

-The consent of the interviewees for the scientific publication was further clarified in the text

-The identified spelling mistakes have been corrected

We would like to express our gratitude to you for your valuable feedback and wish you the best.

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for inviting me to review the manuscript (sustainability-2942460) entitled “Disruptive Factors in Product Portfolio Management: A Qualitative Exploratory Study in B2B Manufacturing." It is an interesting topic and study. I have some comments

-        Abstract

·       It is informative and precisely written.

 

-        Introduction

·       The motivation must be explained in more detail improved. Why this study is important and required?

·       Although the author(s) highlighted some problems, the author(s) need to further elaborate on what is available on the topic and what makes this study different.

·       The contribution paragraph is brief and does not discuss anything significant. It should be comprehensive and summarize the output of this research.

·       Along with other studies, use these studies to update and further enrich this section.

 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134639

https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-01-2020-0006

https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3508

 

-        Literature Review

 

·       I believe discussing the literature and links between variables will not only help us understand the relationships but also will strengthen this study.  Therefore, I suggest adding a brief literature section.

 

 

-        Material and Methods

·       The methodology is appropriate and thoroughly explained. Sample, items, and respondent details are adequately provided.

·       The analysis techniques are suitable and the results are convincing. They are correctly interpreted and discussed thoroughly.

Conclusion and Discussion

·       The discussion section is well-written and clarifies the study outcomes.

·       What are the theoretical and managerial implications? A separate section must be added and explain how it advances our current knowledge. Additionally, what are suggestions for managers/companies?

·       Limitations and future research directions are not provided.

 

-        Other comments

·       Minor typos and linguistic issues exist in the manuscript.

 

·       Follow alphabetical/chronological order when more than one in-text citation.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some  typos and languages issues.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback. Although we have already received two blinded reviews, we have nevertheless included your comments and recommendations once again.

-The introduction and motivation have been sharpened in the text and better directed towards the topic. The contribution paragraph clearly states that the exploratory study has identified 8 specific challenges in product portfolio management and two strands of action derived from this.

-We have carefully considered the literature you suggested and have the following comments:

• https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3508 (Titel: How does green human resource management contribute to saving the environment? Evidence of emerging market manufacturing firms): Although the article discusses the influence of Green Commitment, it focuses on the area of human resources with a focus on emerging markets. In our view, the application area of product portfolio management and the focus on German industrial companies in our article are not sufficiently relevant. We have now added that companies from Association of German Mechanical and Plant Engineering (VDMA) have been contacted in particular, so that the focus is additionally made clearer.
• https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134639 (Titel: Environmental ethics, green innovation, and sustainable performance: Exploring the role of environmental leadership and environmental strategy): Similar assessment to the previously mentioned article.
• https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-01-2020-0006 (Titel: Fourth industrial revolution, digital servitization and relationship quality in Italian B2B manufacturing firms. An exploratory study): The article examines the role of digital servitization, based on the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Industry 4.0), in relation to the quality of relationships between suppliers and customers in Italian B2B manufacturing companies. It shows that access to customers and data is essential to offer advanced digital services and improve relationship quality. In our article, we also refer to digital servitization as a new business model that can have a disruptive impact on the product portfolio. In the introduction, we have already considered and referenced the basic work on servitization by Vandermewe (1988) as well as, for example, Raddats et al (2019) and Altenfelder et al (2021), which also deal very intensively with digital servitization and even make a reference to the product portfolio, which we have listed. The focus on the close customer-supplier relationship in your article also reflects a challenge that was mentioned by some of the experts interviewed. However, since the paper you mentioned is also an exploratory study and does not present a methodological approach that we would otherwise have included in our discussion, we do not see any requirement to add it here.

If you see any other connection between the proposed articles and product portfolio management that we have not yet recognized, please specify this in more detail and we will check it once again.

-The study already identifies and presents two new dimensions of action as future research directions. A separate section on theoretical and managerial implication is not necessarily foreseen by the MDPI guidelines and is not necessary in the opinion of the authors. However, the limitations of the work were added as an additional section in the discussion.

-The text was checked again for spelling mistakes and adjusted

-The order of “more than one in-text citation” has been checked again and adjusted chronologically.

We would like to express our gratitude to you for your valuable feedback and wish you the best

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It can be published.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your final feedback and approval for publication.

Best regards

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

We appreciate that the authors improved the paper by addressing the recommendations made by the reviewer.

 

Even so, we still recommend that they specify the source below each representation/table, even if it is their representation/table. (Authors'elaboration)

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your final feedback and appreciation of the revised adjustments. 

According to the MDPI author guidelines, "Author's elaboration" is not required for figures and tables created by the author. We looked at several other recently published papers at MDPI Sustainability and did not find any other papers that included this information. Therefore, we would like to stick with the current format and only cite the source for figures/tables that were created by other authors.

Thank you and best regards