Business Resilience for Small and Medium Enterprises and Startups by Digital Transformation and the Role of Marketing Capabilities—A Systematic Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript explores the intersection of digital transformation, business resilience, and marketing capabilities, focusing on small businesses and startups. It collected a large number of literature based on the PRISMA framework and has the potential for publication. The main suggestions are as follows. First, the manuscript should strictly revolve around the main topic. Currently, the content of the manuscript appears to be scattered and not strongly related to the main topic. Secondly, the characteristics of SMEs and startups are not clearly explained in this article, and this needs to be supplemented.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
First, the manuscript should strictly revolve around the main topic. Currently, the content of the manuscript appears to be scattered and not strongly related to the main topic.
Response: Thank you for your feedback. We have reorganized and revised the manuscript to focus solely on the main topic, removing extraneous sections and refining the remaining content for relevance. Additionally, as this is a literature review, our approach aims to provide a broad overview of the body of knowledge, benefiting a wider audience..
Secondly, the characteristics of SMEs and startups are not clearly explained in this article, and this needs to be supplemented.
Response: Thank you for your feedback. We have now added 2 extra paragraph at introduction that clearly explains the characteristics of SMEs and startups.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Your proposed paper presents a significant contribution to understanding of digital transformation, business resilience, and the role of marketing capabilities in SMEs and startups. The systematic review methodology, grounded in PRISMA guidelines is rigor to your findings.
However, some minor improvements should be done to enhance the quality of the proposed paper.
First, the section, discussing the long-term impacts of digital transformation on organizational structures and business models could be broadened with more empirical studies (or case examples). This would provide a more comprehensive view of the potential enduring effects of digital initiatives.
Second, the role of digital leadership in driving successful digital transformation is an important aspect that is currently underexplored. A more in-depth discussion on the attributes, behaviors, and strategies of effective digital leaders would be beneficial.
Additionally, the societal and environmental impacts of digital transformation are mentioned but not deeply explored. Given the increasing emphasis on sustainability, this section should be expanded to discuss these impacts more thoroughly. Research on how digital transformation influences employment patterns, income inequality, data privacy, and environmental sustainability should be added.
Otherwise, according to my opinion, the paper is well written, therefore I wish you good luck with it!
Author Response
Reviewer 2
First, the section, discussing the long-term impacts of digital transformation on organizational structures and business models could be broadened with more empirical studies (or case examples). This would provide a more comprehensive view of the potential enduring effects of digital initiatives.
Response: Thank you for your feedback. We have included more elaboration with examples and case studies as practical.
Second, the role of digital leadership in driving successful digital transformation is an important aspect that is currently underexplored. A more in-depth discussion on the attributes, behaviors, and strategies of effective digital leaders would be beneficial.
Response: Thanks for your input! we've thoroughly revised and elaborated on all the research gaps, including the role of digital leadership in driving successful digital transformation.
Additionally, the societal and environmental impacts of digital transformation are mentioned but not deeply explored. Given the increasing emphasis on sustainability, this section should be expanded to discuss these impacts more thoroughly.
Response: Thanks for your suggestion! I've expanded and oriented the section on societal and environmental impacts of digital transformation to focus more on sustainability.
Research on how digital transformation influences employment patterns, income inequality, data privacy, and environmental sustainability should be added.
Response: Thanks for your input! We've elaborated on and revised the section to include research on how digital transformation influences employment patterns, income inequality, data privacy, and environmental sustainability.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an interesting, important, and well-written paper on the impact of digital transformation (DT) on SMEs and the role that digital and marketing capabilities play in their business resilience. By reviewing large bundles of literature, the authors identify key DT trends in the literature, i.e., popular research topics and point to some neglected topics (research gaps). They use modern tools (VOSviewer and density visualisation for the literature review) and develop a well-designed methodology (Figure 1) for the review. More importantly, the authors’ insights make much sense.
However, the paper has some important deficiencies that need to be addressed. If this is done effectively, the manuscript will be suitable for publication.
The first major issue is structure. The manuscript is not only too long but it also deals with three different topics, that need to be discussed separately.
The first topic reviews the literature on digital transformation and the identifies trends and research gaps. This part deserves being published separately from the other issues: it is a good summary and offers important insights.
The second theme concerns standards and regulations. I would completely eliminate this, it brings little novelty, it is overly descriptive and is unrelated to the first part.
The third topic is the role of marketing capabilities and resilience of SMEs undergoing digital transformation. Again, this issue can and needs to be published separately, it makes no sense to combine these topics.
My next concern is with the literature review. From time to time, I checked the references and many of them turned out to be unrelated to the text where the reference is made.
For example, lines 40-41: the text is about the potential of digital technologies to enhance operational efficiency, improve decision-making, foster innovation, and unlock new revenue streams. The references (3 and 4) are about AI-embedded customer relationship management systems (?) or “Toward 6G Architecture for Energy-Efficient Communication in Iot-Enabled Smart Automation Systems” – how are these papers related to the topic you made reference to?
In lines 43-46 you posit that: “successful implementation of digital transformation goes beyond the mere adoption of technology. It requires a holistic, organization-wide approach that aligns digital initiatives with the firm's strategic objectives, organizational capabilities, and cultural norms.
I can fully agree with this point. However the reference seems totally unrelated (No. 6: Digital Financial Inclusion as a Pillar of Disaster Resilience)
It seems, you randomly make references to papers, using perhaps ChatGPT???
There are many many more problems like this! I did not check everything, but I have serious doubts with references including No. 21, 22, 24, 25, 44, 71, 72
In short, please double-check all your references and include only relevant ones. Less is more!
On the other hand, you could include other, truly relevant papers discussing your topics, for example Teece’s papers on monetization strategy, business models, and capturing revenues from digital transformation, Szalavetz’s paper on the impact of digital transformation on job design work and routine, Eggers and Park’s paper on adaptation to technological change, and Warner and Wäger’s paper about dynamic capabilities for digital transformation.
Some better structuring of the results would improve the paper, e.g. trend 1 (operations) and employee skills and digital skills in operations would better go together, you should consider both operations and strategy – one after the other not combined as it is now! For example, lines 426-432 are about strategy but they are included in the “operations” subsection.
Eliminate repetitions this would also streamline the text.
A minor issue is line 710: what is digital leadership? How do you define it?
Taken together, I recommend the authors cut this manuscript into two, submit the literature review separately, eliminate the sections on standards and regulation and prepare a separate manuscript about the highly important issue of marketing capabilities and resilience in SMEs undergoing digital transformation. I am willing to review that part of the manuscript if submitted in the form of a separate paper.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
The first major issue is structure. The manuscript is not only too long but it also deals with three different topics that need to be discussed separately.
Response: Thanks for your feedback. The structure of the manuscript follows a logical flow of information, as detailed in the paper structure figure and flow chart diagram. However, I have made some changes to ensure it is more consistent and effectively addresses each topic separately.
The first topic reviews the literature on digital transformation and identifies trends and research gaps. This part deserves being published separately from the other issues: it is a good summary and offers important insights.
Response: Thanks for your perspective. The literature review on digital transformation indeed provides valuable insights and could stand alone as a separate publication. However, for this project, it was necessary to include the other parts on standards and regulations, as well as the role of marketing capabilities and SME resilience in digital transformation. This approach ensures the paper is comprehensive and serves as a one-stop shop for readers to access all relevant information on the topic.
The second theme concerns standards and regulations. I would completely eliminate this, it brings little novelty, it is overly descriptive and is unrelated to the first part.
Response: Thanks for your feedback! Regulation is mentioned in a broad overview context, and we cannot remove it as it is part of the general overview. It complements the discussion without delving too deeply into specifics.
The third topic is the role of marketing capabilities and resilience of SMEs undergoing digital transformation. Again, this issue can and needs to be published separately, it makes no sense to combine these topics.
Response: Thanks for your perspective. This topic is essential as it aligns with the paper's title and is central to my thesis. It wouldn't make sense to split it into two separate papers, as doing so would leave each paper feeling incomplete and lead to unnecessary repetition and overlap between them.
My next concern is with the literature review. From time to time, I checked the references and many of them turned out to be unrelated to the text where the reference is made.
Response: Thanks for bringing this to my attention. You're right, I used Mendeley reference manager, and there may have been issues with how the references were placed. I'll make sure to double-check all the references and ensure they accurately correspond to the text they support.
For example, lines 40-41: the text is about the potential of digital technologies to enhance operational efficiency, improve decision-making, foster innovation, and unlock new revenue streams. The references (3 and 4) are about AI-embedded customer relationship management systems (?) or “Toward 6G Architecture for Energy-Efficient Communication in Iot-Enabled Smart Automation Systems” – how are these papers related to the topic you made reference to?
Response: Thanks for bringing this to my attention. There was an issue with the reference manager, and here are the revised references:
Cvijić Čović, M.; Borocki, J.; Djaković, V.; Vekić, A.; Okanović, A. Entrepreneurial Strategic Orientation: Prerequisite for SMEs Success in IoT and Digital Transformation Sphere? Systems 2023, 11, doi:10.3390/systems11060272.
Manser Payne, E.H.; Dahl, A.J.; Peltier, J. Digital Servitization Value Co-Creation Framework for AI Services: A Research Agenda for Digital Transformation in Financial Service Ecosystems. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 2021, 15, 200–222, doi:10.1108/JRIM-12-2020-0252.
These references are now correctly aligned with the topic mentioned in lines 40-41 of the manuscript.
In lines 43-46 you posit that: “successful implementation of digital transformation goes beyond the mere adoption of technology. It requires a holistic, organization-wide approach that aligns digital initiatives with the firm's strategic objectives, organizational capabilities, and cultural norms.
I can fully agree with this point. However the reference seems totally unrelated (No. 6: Digital Financial Inclusion as a Pillar of Disaster Resilience)
Response: Thanks for pointing that out. Here are the revised references:
Ramadan, M.; Bou Zakhem, N.; Baydoun, H.; Daouk, A.; Youssef, S.; El Fawal, A.; Elia, J.; Ashaal, A. Toward Digital Transformation and Business Model Innovation: The Nexus between Leadership, Organizational Agility, and Knowledge Transfer. Adm Sci 2023, 13, doi:10.3390/admsci13080185.
Kaya, H.D.; Dikmen, I. Using System Dynamics to Support Strategic Digitalization Decisions. J Constr Eng Manag 2024, 150, doi:10.1061/JCEMD4.COENG-14112.
These references are now more relevant and aligned with the topic discussed in lines 43-46 of the manuscript.
It seems, you randomly make references to papers, using perhaps ChatGPT???
Response: Thanks for your concern. Just to clarify, I used Mendeley reference manager, not ChatGPT, to handle and manage references in my work.
There are many many more problems like this! I did not check everything, but I have serious doubts with references including No. 21, 22, 24, 25, 44, 71, 72
Response: Thanks for your feedback. All of these references (No. 21, 22, 24, 25, 44, 71, and 72) have been removed and replaced with more appropriate ones.
In short, please double-check all your references and include only relevant ones. Less is more!
Response: Thanks for your advice. I have thoroughly checked and revised all references to ensure that only relevant ones are included.
On the other hand, you could include other, truly relevant papers discussing your topics, for example Teece’s papers on monetization strategy, business models, and capturing revenues from digital transformation, Szalavetz’s paper on the impact of digital transformation on job design work and routine, Eggers and Park’s paper on adaptation to technological change, and Warner and Wäger’s paper about dynamic capabilities for digital transformation.
Response: Thanks for these amazing suggestions. We have cited these relevant papers in our work. Their insights have greatly enriched our discussion on digital transformation and related topics.
Some better structuring of the results would improve the paper, e.g. trend 1 (operations) and employee skills and digital skills in operations would better go together, you should consider both operations and strategy – one after the other not combined as it is now! For example, lines 426-432 are about strategy but they are included in the “operations” subsection.
Response: Thanks for your suggestion. From the expert's point of view, digital transformation and digital skills are indeed separate topics that should not be mixed. The clusters and subsections in the paper have been structured based on extensive literature review to maintain clarity and focus on each distinct aspect.
Eliminate repetitions this would also streamline the text.
Response: Thanks for your feedback. We've reviewed the text to reduce repetitions where possible. However, some repetitions are necessary to provide complementary explanations and viewpoints from different perspectives.
A minor issue is line 710: what is digital leadership? How do you define it?
Response: Thanks for pointing that out. I've revised the section based on feedback from another reviewer and elaborated more to define digital leadership clearly and provide examples.
Taken together, I recommend the authors cut this manuscript into two, submit the literature review separately, eliminate the sections on standards and regulation and prepare a separate manuscript about the highly important issue of marketing capabilities and resilience in SMEs undergoing digital transformation. I am willing to review that part of the manuscript if submitted in the form of a separate paper.
Response: Thanks for your recommendation. However, for this project, it was decided to keep the manuscript as a cohesive whole, encompassing the literature review on digital transformation, standards and regulations, and the role of marketing capabilities and SME resilience. This approach ensures comprehensive coverage of the topic and provides readers with a consolidated resource.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll questions have been addressed.
