Developing Organizational Agility in SMEs: An Investigation of Innovation’s Roles and Strategic Flexibility

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, I have enjoyed reading your article!

 • Is the manuscript clear, relevant to the field, and presented in a well-structured way?

The manuscript presents the curren t topic of the impact of factors ofsocial capital , co-creation of knowledge and innovation on the development of organizational agility in Indonesian SMEs. The topic itself is not exclusively original, but this manuscript is valuable in that it provides a field for comparing the results obtained on the example of Indonesia with the results of similar studies conducted in Germany, Taiwan and Spain. The article is well structured, the results of the study are adequate to the hypotheses, and the conclusions correspond to the results obtained and the arguments reflected in the Discussion.

• Are the references cited mostly recent (within the last 5 years) and up-to-date?

All cited references are relevant and fully reflect the conceptual field of the study.

• Is the manuscript scientifically sound and is the design of the experiment suitable for testing the hypothesis?

The study is based on evidence-based methods, and uses recognized software to process the results of a survey of 414 managers. All research hypotheses are presented in a logical sequence; the plan and methods of the experiment correspond to the hypotheses.

• Are the figures/tables/images/diagrams appropriate? Are they displaying the data correctly?

Figures and tables fully reveal the details of the study. The results of the survey contain statistical indicators that substantiate the conclusions of the study.

• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?

The conclusions of the study are fully consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. In addition, it should be noted that the authors also presented their vision of managerial implications, limitations and the direction of future research, which is a valuable material and reflects the position of the authors in the global topic of organizational agility research.

However, I have a few small comments on the text of the manuscript:

- in line 121, the authors used the abbreviation SI in the sentence "The literature also explored how collaborative knowledge creation is considered as a dynamic process that happens during SI between organizations and their partners", as well as the abbreviation MV in line 386 in the sentence "Furthermore, strategic flexibility was not a MV of the relationship between innovation and organizational agility.” I believe it is necessary to provide the full spelling of these abbreviations.

- in section 3.2 Measurements (line 268 et seq.) the authors refer to the concept of social capital reflected in current publications and provide questions from the questionnaire for managers that describe social capital also on the basis of relevant publications of various authors. Considering that the study affected managers of only one of the fields of activity (woodworking), it is of interest to understand / interpret social capital and organizational agility of representatives of this particular field of activity. What exactly is the social capital of employees expressed for them and how / with the help of what indicators do they assess the organizational agility of their enterprises (if such information was collected during the study and / or is available).

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 comments

Point 1. in line 121, the authors used the abbreviation SI in the sentence "The literature also explored how collaborative knowledge creation is considered as a dynamic process that happens during SI between organizations and their partners", as well as the abbreviation MV in line 386 in the sentence "Furthermore, strategic flexibility was not a MV of the relationship between innovation and organizational agility.” I believe it is necessary to provide the full spelling of these abbreviations

Response 1. Thank you for your comments, SI stands for social interaction and MV stands for moderating variable. Authors have fixed the issue in the manuscript

Point 2. In section 3.2 Measurements (line 268 et seq.) the authors refer to the concept of social capital reflected in current publications and provide questions from the questionnaire for managers that describe social capital also on the basis of relevant publications of various authors. Considering that the study affected managers of only one of the fields of activity (woodworking), it is of interest to understand / interpret social capital and organizational agility of representatives of this particular field of activity. What exactly is the social capital of employees expressed for them and how / with the help of what indicators do they assess the organizational agility of their enterprises (if such information was collected during the study and / or is available).

Response 2. Authors add significant literature in section Discussion and Research Implications (highlight in red -trackchanges)

In woodcraft SMEs, the social capital construct was adopted from previous research (Al-Omoush et al., 2020; Hayton, 2005; Liu et al., 2016). The social capital involved was 1) the ability to increase opportunities, ideas, and concepts, called exploration aimed to increase contribution in the international market because it has unique and high-value products; 2) close partners and collaborations included suppliers, producers, governments, and competitors. Woodcraft SMEs had mutually beneficial collaborations (Leckel et al., 2020; Patricio et al., 2018; Zaridis et al., 2021), especially in the provision of high artistic value handcraft products (Parwita et al., 2021); 3) partners could make decisions, especially when confronted with varied market factors (Liu and Yang, 2020; Quaye, 2019); as a result, social capital was strengthened as a source of strength in developing long-term performance. (Tan and Sousa, 2015); 4) recommendations from the social networks built between them (Williams et al., 2020) became a strength in facing market turbulence (Hsin Chang et al., 2019); and 5) social networks influenced processes, products, and services (Ahmadi and Ershadi, 2021; Williams et al., 2020); thus, SMEs' stability and productivity were strengthened.

Authors add significant literature in section Literature Review (highlight in red -trackchanges)

While the indicators used to measure organizational agility were 1) seizing possibilities in potential (Falahat et al., 2020), markets, and minimizing threats so that they have a strategic intent to build production stability (Ciszewska-Mlinarič, 2016; Gavrila Gavrila and de Lucas Ancillo, 2021); 2) exhibit sensitivity to environmental changes (Stekelorum et al., 2020) in order to deal with dynamics (Cosenz and Bivona, 2020; Faccin and Balestrin, 2018; Weaven et al., 2021); 3) increase decision-making agility (Khan et al., 2020; Liu and Yang, 2020; Quaye, 2019); 4) resource, process, and technology adaptation to address changing environmental needs (Azudin and Mansor, 2018; Chege and Wang, 2020; Meijer et al., 2019); and 5) taking into account new price, marketing, manufacturing, and/or partnership actions (Ciszewska-Mlinari, 2016; Falahat et al., 2020; King et al., 2020). Organizational agility in woodcraft SMEs occurred because they produced highly artistic products, high quality, hard to imitate, and of high value (Parwita et al., 2021) and had export shares in various European and American countries.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. long title of the article, hard to read and understand - it is recommended to optimize, put part of it in keywords.

2. The title is duplicated in keywords - it is recommended to remove duplication.

3. in the annotation, the emphasis is more on strategic flexibility, and not on organizational agility - perhaps for the author these are synonymous concepts, then the article needs argumentation.

4. part of the Literary Review is excellent - modern, relevant publications

5. This research factors influencing organizational agility and strategic flexibility —it is recommended that title and abstract be consistent, given that the authors are internally investigating two factors.

6. the article must be brought to the requirements of the editors (links to literature, tables, etc.)

7. It is recommended to make conclusions more clear and structured

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 comments

Point 1. Long title of the article, hard to read and understand - it is recommended to optimize, put part of it in keywords.

Response 1. Thank you for your comments and suggestion, authors has change the tittle of the paper: Developing Organizational Agility in SMEs: An Investigation of Innovation's Roles and Strategic Flexibility.

Point 2. The title is duplicated in keywords - it is recommended to remove duplication.

Response 2: Authors deleted duplicated keywords in the tittle

Point 3: In the annotation, the emphasis is more on strategic flexibility, and not on organizational agility - perhaps for the author these are synonymous concepts, then the article needs argumentation.

Response 3: Authors add significant literature in section Literature Review (highlight in red -trackchanges).

While the indicators used to measure organizational agility were 1) seizing possibilities in potential (Falahat et al., 2020), markets, and minimizing threats so that they have a strategic intent to build production stability (Ciszewska-Mlinarič, 2016; Gavrila Gavrila and de Lucas Ancillo, 2021); 2) exhibit sensitivity to environmental changes (Stekelorum et al., 2020) in order to deal with dynamics (Cosenz and Bivona, 2020; Faccin and Balestrin, 2018; Weaven et al., 2021); 3) increase decision-making agility (Khan et al., 2020; Liu and Yang, 2020; Quaye, 2019); 4) resource, process, and technology adaptation to address changing environmental needs (Azudin and Mansor, 2018; Chege and Wang, 2020; Meijer et al., 2019); and 5) taking into account new price, marketing, manufacturing, and/or partnership actions (Ciszewska-Mlinari, 2016; Falahat et al., 2020; King et al., 2020). Organizational agility in woodcraft SMEs occurred because they produced highly artistic products, high quality, hard to imitate, and of high value (Parwita et al., 2021) and had export shares in various European and American countries.

Point 4: Part of the Literary Review is excellent - modern, relevant publications

Response 4: thank you for the appreciation

Point 5: This research factors influencing organizational agility and strategic flexibility —it is recommended that title and abstract be consistent, given that the authors are internally investigating two factors.

Response 5: authors has change the tittle of the paper and deleted duplicated keywords in the tittle.

Point 6: The article must be brought to the requirements of the editors (links to literature, tables, etc.)

Response 6: authors have fixed referencing style, table, figure and body of the paper

Point 7: It is recommended to make conclusions more clear and structured

Response 7: Authors add section Conclussion and future study and also enhance the limitations and future study (highlight in red-trackchanges)