Coopetition with the Industrial IoT: A Service-Dominant Logic Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study presents an exploration of leveraging the IIoT to facilitate coopetition among SMEs, employing a Service-Dominant Logic approach. The study integrates DSR methodology to bridge the gap in existing coopetition networks through technological innovation, demonstrated by the development and evaluation of the Cockpit4.0+ system. Here are some suggestions:

1. The positive acceptance rate of 78.9% is encouraging; however, further elaboration on the criteria for expert selection and the methodological rigor of the evaluation process could strengthen the validity of the findings.

2.  Discussing how the Cockpit4.0+ system could be adapted and scaled for other sectors beyond stone manufacturing or for SMEs in different geographic contexts would offer valuable insights into its broader applicability.

 

3. More explicit discussion on the limitations of the current manuscript and detailed directions for future research.

Author Response

Subject: Response to Reviewer Comments on Manuscript “Coopetition with Industrial IoT: A Service-Dominant Logic Approach”

 

Dear Professor

I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to express my sincere gratitude for taking the time to review my manuscript titled Coopetition with Industrial IoT: A Service-Dominant Logic Approach”. Your feedback has been instrumental in refining various aspects of the manuscript, and I am pleased to address each of your comments and suggestions as follows:

1. Criteria for Expert Selection and Methodological Rigor: Your suggestion to provide further elaboration on the criteria for expert selection and the methodological rigor of the evaluation process is well-received. I have revised the survey description to offer more clarity in this regard. You will find the updated sections highlighted in blue for your convenience.
2. Adaptation and Scaling of Cockpit4.0+ System: I acknowledge the importance of discussing how the Cockpit4.0+ system could be adapted and scaled for other sectors or SMEs in different geographic contexts. Accordingly, I have expanded the conclusions section to include insights into its broader applicability, as suggested. The revisions are highlighted in blue.
3. Discussion on Limitations and Future Research Directions: Your suggestion for a more explicit discussion on the limitations of the current manuscript and detailed directions for future research is duly noted. I have made the limitations clearer and provided detailed directions for future research. Again, these changes are highlighted in blue.

Additionally, I have taken the liberty to revise the Introduction, citations, and methods sections to ensure adequate description and clarity.

Once again, I extend my heartfelt appreciation for your invaluable assistance in refining this manuscript. Your thoughtful suggestions have significantly contributed to its improvement. Please feel free to reach out if you require any further clarification or have additional feedback.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Warm regards,

Agostinho da Silva

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is proposing an advancement of the Cockpit4.0 system by integrating the principles of S-D Logic and leveraging DSR methodology.
The artefact has been evaluated and relults presented.

Cockpit4.0, from which Cockpit4.0+ derived, is never cited in the reference and is not clear if the tool is open source or not. Personally I imagine that the answare is yes but I had not a clear figure of this tool, even looking in the web.
As the description part is well presented and clear, the development and integration process and components of Cockpit4.0+ seems to remain on a high level without going into details.

Although the demonstation tests and the functional acceptance lead to a quite high acceptance rate of the artefact, it is not clear how the outcomes have been produced in terms of qualitative and quantitative approach.
Even if the study has been conducted under confidentiality, the approach used should be more detailed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is well written, with a clear presentation. I have no issues about the language quality.

Author Response

Subject: Response to Reviewer Comments on Manuscript “Coopetition with Industrial IoT: A Service-Dominant Logic Approach”

 

Dear Professor

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to extend my sincere gratitude for your time and efforts in reviewing my manuscript titled Coopetition with Industrial IoT: A Service-Dominant Logic Approach." Your insightful feedback and suggestions have been immensely valuable in refining the quality and clarity of the research presented. I am pleased to address each of your comments and suggestions as follows:

1. Citation and Clarity Regarding Cockpit4.0: Your observation regarding the citation and clarity regarding Cockpit4.0 and its derivative, Cockpit4.0+, is well-taken. I acknowledge that the citation placement could have been clearer. I have rectified this by ensuring the citation (35940/ijitee.H6804.069820) is in the appropriate position and provided additional clarity regarding the nature of the tool. You can refer to the updated manuscript with changes highlighted in blue for your convenience.
2. Detailed Description of Development and Integration Process: I appreciate your feedback concerning the need for a more detailed description of the development and integration process, as well as the components of Cockpit4.0+. I have made revisions to address this concern, ensuring that these aspects are elucidated with greater clarity and detail. The updated sections can be found highlighted in blue.
3. Clarity on Outcome Production Approach: Your point regarding the clarity on how the outcomes were produced in terms of qualitative and quantitative approaches is well-noted. Despite the confidentiality of the study, I have provided a more detailed description of the approach used, addressing the need for clarity in this aspect. You will find the revised sections highlighted in blue for easy identification.

Additionally, I have improved the results and conclusions sections based on your feedback, aiming to enhance the overall coherence and effectiveness of the manuscript.

Once again, I express my sincere appreciation for your invaluable feedback and guidance throughout the review process. Your suggestions have significantly contributed to the refinement of this manuscript. Please do not hesitate to reach out if you require any further clarification or have additional feedback.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Warm regards,

Agostinho da Silva

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper focuses on the effect of IIoT in enhancing coopetition among SMEs and develops a corresponding system called Cockpit4.0+. However, the whole paper looks like a guiding book or long news report that introduces some high-level and basic concepts/functions of this system rather than an academic paper. The scientific contribution is marginal while the application detail of it is lacking as well. Some suggestions are listed as follows:

1. The authors mention that Cockpit4.0+ is an improved version of Cockpit4.0. They are suggested to analyze the specific improvement clearly so as to highlight the major contribution of this paper.

2. At the start of Section 3, the authors indicate that “The Cockpit4.0+ system employs operant capabilities that leverage knowledge-based 259 resources to enhance coopetition networks”, but they merely introduce very basic concepts about AI, ML, modular architecture, etc. What specific works the authors have done to enable these capabilities? What AI/ML algorithms are developed or utilized? How do these capabilities work? Such things should be introduced in detail rather than just indicating abstract “These technologies enable sophisticated data analysis, market trend forecasting, and the generation of actionable intelligence.” Similar drawbacks can be found all along the paper. Every time the authors propose some work they have done, only abstract concepts are given without introducing the deployment details about this technique.

3. The case study asks some experts to evaluate the innovation, usefulness, and cybersecurity of the proposed system. However, no more details about the evaluation criteria regarding these aspects are discussed. Without these specific criteria, how can we deem the given rating as believable?

Author Response

Subject: Response to Reviewer Comments on Manuscript “Coopetition with Industrial IoT: A Service-Dominant Logic Approach”

 

Dear Professor

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my sincere gratitude for your time and effort in reviewing my manuscript titled Coopetition with Industrial IoT: A Service-Dominant Logic Approach". Your valuable feedback and insightful suggestions have been instrumental in refining the quality and depth of the research presented.

I appreciate your thorough evaluation and constructive criticism regarding the focus of the paper on the impact of IIoT in enhancing coopetition among SMEs, as well as the development of the corresponding system, Cockpit4.0+. I am pleased to address each of your comments and suggestions as follows:

1. Clarification on Specific Improvement of Cockpit4.0+: Your suggestion to analyze the specific improvements of Cockpit4.0+ in comparison to its predecessor is well-received. I have provided a clearer explanation highlighting the major contributions of this paper, particularly in terms of improving the state-of-the-art by connecting multiple manufacturing rivals' shopfloors to facilitate coopetition networks. The revisions are highlighted in blue for your reference.
2. Detailed Introduction of AI/ML Capabilities: I acknowledge your feedback regarding the need for a more detailed introduction of the AI/ML capabilities employed in the Cockpit4.0+ system. I have addressed this by introducing a separate section dedicated to AI/ML modules, providing deployment details and explanations of how these capabilities enable sophisticated data analysis, market trend forecasting, and actionable intelligence generation. The revised sections are highlighted in blue for easy identification.
3. Clarity on Evaluation Criteria for Case Study: Your concern regarding the lack of specific evaluation criteria for aspects such as innovation, usefulness, and cybersecurity in the case study is duly noted. I have provided additional details on the evaluation criteria to ensure the credibility of the ratings provided by the experts. These revisions can be found highlighted in blue.

Furthermore, I have made additional improvements to the research design, methodology, results, and conclusions based on your feedback, aiming to enhance the overall clarity and rigor of the manuscript.

Once again, I extend my heartfelt appreciation for your insightful suggestions and constructive criticism, which have significantly contributed to the refinement of this manuscript. Your guidance has been invaluable throughout the review process. Please feel free to reach out if you require any further clarification or have additional feedback.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Warm regards,

Agostinho da Silva

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Comments to the authors

By integrating S-D Logic principles and DSR methodology, this paper showscases the potential of Cockpit4.0+ tool in fostering effective coopetition networks, highlighting its potential to enhance SME competitiveness through IIoT integration. This is a very interesting paper that I believe could be of interest to the journal, as it reports an empirical case with satisfactory results that could arouse the interest of SMEs as well as academics. I have made some minor comments that I hope will help you to improve the presentation of your work in the paper.

Abstract

I would rearrange the relationship of the parts of the abstract. A brief 2-line introduction to the topic followed by a statement of the knowledge gap ('this study addresses the crucial gap in enabling 7 effective coopetition networks through technological innovation...') and the objective and scope of the research (first sentence in the actual abstract).

The authors talk about promising results of a coopetition software for SMEs. It would be interesting if the authors could mention at least one result relevant for academia and/or other stakeholders with respect to the research objectives.

Main text

I think I would change points 2.2 and 2.3. It makes more sense in my opinion to talk about 'IIoT Challenges and Potential Solutions for Coopetition Enabling' and then explain the options for addressing the challenges 'Addressing IIoT under an S-D Logic Perspective'.

IIoT Challenges and Potential Solutions for Coopetition Enabling', I miss references in the third and fourth paragraphs (lines 185 and 192, respectively) on which the authors' points are based.

The methodology section is strange to me. I do not see the exposition of the methodological design of the research, but rather the explanation of the characteristics and benefits of the Cockpit4.0+ tool. If I am right, we would be talking about a part of the research results.

Honestly, the introduction of Cockpit4.0+ in line 227 has the feel of a marketing text, expressions like 'significant breakthrough' or 'Regarded as state-of-the-art within the industry, Cockpit4.0 exemplifies the potential of IIoT' I think give an idea of what I want to convey.

The authors mention the 'Inovstone4.0 R&D Project', please talk very briefly about it, where it arises, which entities participate, who finances it...

For example, in line 314 a reference is needed to support this statement: 'This capability is critical for SMEs seeking to differentiate themselves through unique value propositions'.

Section 5 starts with elements of the methodology description.

On line 434 it says 'twenty-four'. Better in numerical value as in the conclusions.

Also in this paragraph, do the authors speak of respondents or surveyed companies? This is clarified in the conclusions. I recommend doing so here, in section 5.

I think I would merge sections 5.1 and 5.2 and create a single section 5 on results. I would also add a discussion part next to the results or separately.

In any case, I find the survey rather poor, I miss more relevant data on the performance and results of the implementation of the tool.

What does DL#0, 1, 2... mean? Level of digital maturity? To be indicated. It is also necessary to indicate the number of respondents. We also do not know what kind of respondents have been asked. Are they end-users, managers... of the companies?

Section 6 of the conclusions should be summarised, be more concise (try not to exceed 12 lines), especially the first two paragraphs. After a short introduction to the topic and recalling the objective of the research (first and second paragraphs), I would personally highlight the main contributions and implications for stakeholders (third paragraph), as well as mention limitations and future lines of research (fourth paragraph).

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some sentences seem a bit convoluted to me. I think it is possible to be clearer and more concise.

Author Response

Subject: Response to Reviewer Comments on Manuscript “Coopetition with Industrial IoT: A Service-Dominant Logic Approach”

 

Dear Professor

I sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing my manuscript titled Coopetition with Industrial IoT: A Service-Dominant Logic Approach." Your detailed feedback and valuable suggestions have been immensely helpful in refining the quality and presentation of the research. Please find below my responses to each of your comments and suggestions:

1. Abstract Reorganization: I agree with your suggestion to reorganize the abstract to provide a more succinct introduction to the topic, address the knowledge gap, and clearly state the research objectives. Additionally, I have incorporated relevant results that are of interest to academia and other stakeholders. These revisions aim to enhance the clarity and relevance of the abstract.
2. Title Modification and Missing References: Thank you for your suggestion to modify the titles of sections 2.2 and 2.3 to improve clarity. I have made the necessary changes and ensured that references support the points made in the text.
3. Methodology Section Clarification: I appreciate your observation regarding the methodology section and agree that it should focus on the methodological design rather than the characteristics of the Cockpit4.0+ tool. I have separated the methodology section from the Cockpit4.0+ development to provide a clearer exposition of the research design.
4. Introduction Refinement: Your feedback on the introduction's marketing tone is well-taken. I have removed unnecessary adjectives to ensure a more objective and academic tone throughout the manuscript.
5. Explanation of Inovstone4.0 R&D Project: I acknowledge the need to provide brief background information on the Inovstone4.0 R&D Project. I have added a short sentence to clarify its origin, participating entities, and financing.
6. Supporting Statements with References: Thank you for highlighting the need for references to support certain statements, such as the critical capability for SMEs. I have included relevant references to provide adequate support for these statements.
7. Improvement of Results Section: I agree that the survey data presented in the results section could be more comprehensive. I have provided additional details and clarified the digital maturity levels and respondent types for better understanding.
8. Conciseness in Conclusions: Your suggestion to summarize and be more concise in the conclusions section is noted. I have revised the conclusions to provide a brief introduction to the topic, highlight main contributions and implications, and mention limitations and future research directions within a concise framework.
9. Quality of English Language: I have carefully reviewed and edited the manuscript to ensure clarity and conciseness in the language used.

All revisions have been made in blue to facilitate easy identification of changes.

I am grateful for your insightful comments and suggestions, which have significantly contributed to improving the manuscript. Your thorough review has been invaluable, and I am confident that the revisions made will enhance the paper's overall quality and readability.

Thank you once again for your time and assistance.

Warm regards,

Agostinho da Silva

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the revisions made by the authors. However, I still have a major concern about the academic contribution of this paper. It is more like a report that simply introduces the basic concepts of the developed system without showing much technological value.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the authors

By integrating S-D Logic principles and DSR methodology, this paper showscases the potential of Cockpit4.0+ tool in fostering effective coopetition networks, highlighting its potential to enhance SME competitiveness through IIoT integration. This is a very interesting paper that I believe could be of interest to the journal, as it reports an empirical case with satisfactory results that could arouse the interest of SMEs as well as academics. I have made some minor comments that I hope will help you to improve the presentation of your work in the paper.

I have detected several unnoticed changes in the manuscript reviewed by the authors. I suggest authors be more careful about this because it makes the reviewers' work easier.

Abstract

I certainly like the abstract better now. I would still reinforce the findings’ part, it seems to me that it remains in generalities and could be a bit more concrete.

Main text

The current structure of the main text makes more sense, in my opinion.

In the 'IIoT Challenges and Potential Solutions for Coopetition Enabling' of the previous version, I miss references in the third and fourth paragraphs (lines 185 and 192, respectively) on which the authors' points are based.

The methodology section has improved sufficiently, congratulations to the authors for their effort.

I think it would be necessary to talk about enterprises, what intrinsic characteristics should enterprises have? I am not just talking about size or sector, is it necessary to have a specific set of qualities or capabilities as an organisation to integrate software and co-operate with a higher probability of success? Perhaps having a specific culture, such as advanced management according to management systems based on ISO standards, for example? I think this could be interesting for companies and future research in other sectors.

The conclusion table is not numbered.

 

The appendix table should not have the numbering 'Table 2', but in any case, I would introduce it in the main text. I don't see the point of putting it as an appendix.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No need.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have provided more details about the Cockpit4.0+ to highlight its contributions. I have no further comments.