Dynamic Capability in Business Ecosystems as a Sustainable Industrial Strategy: How to Accelerate Transformation Momentum

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no more comments to this paper. Thank you.

Author Response

Thank you so much for reviewing our article.  We also improve English language using MDPI's English editing service.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good morning, Dear Authors

 

Thank you for the opportunity to read and review the results of your work. The article is well prepared. There are elements that, in my opinion, could be improved or supplemented, but this does not reduce the value of the already prepared text. For example, it would be worth taking into account the experience of companies that have failed to implement cloud technologies. In the article we can read what successful companies did, but it does not mean that others did not try to do the same. It is precisely by finding differences in approach that it would be possible to develop the right approach.

 

Kind regards.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript again. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections light blue-highlighted changes in the re-submitted files. We also improve English language using MDPI's English editing service.

Comments 1: In the article we can read what successful companies did, but it does not mean that others did not try to do the same. It is precisely by finding differences in approach that it would be possible to develop the right approach.

 

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added an additional future work to “6.3 Limitations and Future Work” section which mentions that investigating cases of failure is also necessary.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

he paper is an interesting case study of dynamic capability in business ecosystem as an industrial strategy. Generally the paper is well written but needs some improvemetns as follows.

1. The abstract is not informative and needs to be improved.

2. The justifcation for this research has not been clearly explained.

3. The review of the literature is quite updated.

4. A review of the theoretical guiding principle would be good.

5. Why choose a case study?

6. The methodological details need improvement, how as the findings derived etc.

7. How the findings will help which stakeholders can be elaborated and expanded.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Acceptable.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript again. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections light blue-highlighted changes in the re-submitted files. We also improve English language using MDPI's English editing service.

 

Comments 1: The abstract is not informative and needs to be improved.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have modified the abstract to add this study’s background and result information more. Please check the light-blue highlighted sentences.

 

Comments 2: The justifcation for this research has not been clearly explained.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. To begin with, regarding the validity of the research methodology, I added a statement in the first paragraph of Chapter 3, based on Yin's reference, indicating that considering the research question, a case study would be the most suitable among several methods. Next, in the first paragraph of Chapter 5, I added a note that, while citing Yin's reference, the methodology for deriving the model was based on time series analysis.

 

Comments 3: The review of the literature is quite updated.

Response 3: Thank you so much for the confirming.

 

Comments 4: A review of the theoretical guiding principle would be good.

Response 4: Thank you so much for the comment. We have revised the sentences as suggested. In response to your feedback, we have updated Response 2, Response 5, and Response 6 to enhance clarity and accuracy. If we have any misunderstood, please let me know.

 

Comments 5: Why choose a case study?

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added to the first paragraph of Chapter 3 an explanation as to why we chose a case study, considering the three criteria for selecting research strategies among experiment, survey, archival analysis, history, and case study.

 

Comments 6: The methodological details need improvement, how as the findings derived etc.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added the sentences “5. New Findings” section’s first paragraph to explain how to find methodological details from time-series analysis.

 

Comments 7: How the findings will help which stakeholders can be elaborated and expanded.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added the benefit for stakeholders (leading companies in existing industries, and partner companies) using SBET model to 6.2 “Theoretical and Practical Contribution” section.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper could be of great interest to readers of this journal. However, some remarks may contribute to improve the quality of this paper. In this regard, research design can be improved so as to clarify how the methods applied in this research may contribute to get scientific knowledge on this issue. For example, how hypotheses are tested, and thus how they respond to research questions. In this sense, it is important to keep in mind that many readers of this journal might not be familiar with a qualitative research approach in business science.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language is good. However, a final proof reading before resubmitted is highly recommended.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In chapter 2 Literature  the focus should be on global cloud service providers ecosystem rather then just general approach of business ecosystems

2. Chapter 3 Research Approach does not provide a proper research methodology. It is rather an update of market share of Amazon Web services  and Microsoft Azure as  cloud service providers and perhaps a very brief historical market evolution.

3. It is not very clear if SBET model developed by the authors has general applicability or just IT companies?

4. Please  correct the typo 6.1. Summaies

5. A Discussion chapter is required in order to better clarify some issues about the SBET model.

Well, tha paper in well written b but certain aspects need to be better clarified, such as the industries to which the model refers, the degree of generalization based on only two case studies, etc.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some Typo to correct

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good morning, Dear Authors

 

The article is interesting, but has a few substantive comments that make it impossible to give a positive review.

1. The topic of the article is inappropriate. The authors refer to the industry, while two companies from the IT sector were selected for the analysis.

2. The article is not coherent. The conclusions and theses put forward by the authors are contradictory.

3. No possibility of verifying the results obtained and repeating the test. No reference to statistical data. The applications received are far-fetched. It seems that the authors are trying from the very beginning to impose and achieve fixed results before the study.