Innovation in Timber Processing—A Case Study on Low-Grade Resource Utilisation for High-Grade Timber Products

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a timely and relevant case study on innovation in timber processing, with solid theoretical framework and a good qualitative research approach. The use of semi-structured interviews and NVivo software is appropriate for this kind of research. However, there is several aspects that should be improved to meet the standard of qualitative studies.

• The main problem is with transparency in presenting interview data. Although authors write that interviews were transcribed, coded using NVivo and interpreted with some personal insights, it’s not really explained how were the coding categories created or how the 18 interview question led to the results structure. Also, results are missing any direct quotes or detailed examples from the interviews, which makes them less clear and convincing. To improve this, authors could add short explanation in methods, like: “Responses were thematically grouped using a coding framework derived from interview questions and refined during NVivo analysis.” Also, including few participant quotes and maybe a small table linking questions to themes (e.g. Q1–Q4 – Innovation process) would help reader understand the logic of the analysis better. Furthermore, the manuscript does not specify when the empirical research (i.e., interviews) was conducted. I recommend including a sentence in the methodology section clearly stating the period during which the interviews were carried out.
• Background on the case company is useful, but it’s currently in the Introduction, while it should be placed in methods section – maybe under Case Study Design – to be more consistent. The firm size and number of employees are repeated few times (e.g. in Sections 1.1 and 3.1.2), which is not needed. Mention it only once.
• Section 1.2 covers lot of theoretical material – RBV, competency theory, dynamic capabilities – but doesn’t really feel like it belongs in introduction. It’s better to make it own section, maybe called “Theoretical Framework”, so the structure of the paper is more clear.
• Some other points: line 127–128 has strange phrasing. It’s better to write something like “Porter [29] and Barney [25] argue that...” for clarity. Also, Table 1 is not even mentioned in the text, and its reference should be formatted same like the others (“adapted from Madhani [xx]”).
• Discussion is broad and touches on interesting topics like innovation systems and strategy, but is quite long and sometimes repetitive. More important, it does not always link back to the results clearly. Since this is qualitative research, it would be better to organize the discussion based on findings (capital, knowledge types, etc.) and discuss them with support of the theory. Some theories are mentioned, but there’s not enough comparison with other studies, like Bull’s case studies. Including newer literature on timber innovation, SMEs or circular economy would also improve the paper a lot. Try to say directly whether findings confirm, differ or add to previous studies.
• Conclusion is generally good and summarizes firm’s strengths well, but it doesn’t fully answer two aims mentioned at the beginning – adding to general knowledge and seeing if the results are useful for other firms. Authors should address this more clearly.
• Literature used is mostly relevant, but many sources are dated, and key concepts introduced in the discussion such as innovation systems, open innovation, and circular economy are not sufficiently supported by recent or specific references.  Since the paper talks about modern issues like sustainability and innovation systems, more recent international sources from last 5–7 years should be added. Also, try to connect the literature more directly to results for a stronger impact.

Author Response

Comment: The main problem is with transparency in presenting interview data. Although authors write that interviews were transcribed, coded using NVivo and interpreted with some personal insights, it’s not really explained how were the coding categories created or how the 18 interview question led to the results structure. Also, results are missing any direct quotes or detailed examples from the interviews, which makes them less clear and convincing. To improve this, authors could add short explanation in methods, like: “Responses were thematically grouped using a coding framework derived from interview questions and refined during NVivo analysis.” Also, including few participant quotes and maybe a small table linking questions to themes (e.g. Q1–Q4 – Innovation process) would help reader understand the logic of the analysis better.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the presentation and transparency of the interview data. In response, the manuscript has been substantially revised from the Introduction through to the Conclusion, including significant updates to the Methodology section to better articulate the logic of analysis, as you suggested. To strengthen transparency and enrich the findings, we have now included selected direct quotes from participants. [L407, L428, L518]

Comment: 

Furthermore, the manuscript does not specify when the empirical research (i.e., interviews) was conducted. I recommend including a sentence in the methodology section clearly stating the period during which the interviews were carried out.

Response: A new section (2.2.3) has been included. [L322] 

Comment: 

Background on the case company is useful, but it’s currently in the Introduction, while it should be placed in methods section – maybe under Case Study Design – to be more consistent. The firm size and number of employees are repeated few times (e.g. in Sections 1.1 and 3.1.2), which is not needed. Mention it only once.

Response: We have removed the repeated references to firm size and number of employees, and relocated the background information on the case company to the beginning of Section 2: Materials and Methods to improve consistency and logical flow. [L231]

Comment: 

Section 1.2 covers lot of theoretical material – RBV, competency theory, dynamic capabilities – but doesn’t really feel like it belongs in introduction. It’s better to make it own section, maybe called “Theoretical Framework”, so the structure of the paper is more clear.

Response: The theoretical content previously included in Section 1.2 has now been reorganised into a dedicated section titled “1.1 Theoretical Framework” [L97], to improve the overall structure and clarity of the manuscript.

Comment: 

Some other points: line 127–128 has strange phrasing. It’s better to write something like “Porter [29] and Barney [25] argue that...” for clarity. Also, Table 1 is not even mentioned in the text, and its reference should be formatted same like the others (“adapted from Madhani [xx]”).

Response: The manuscript has been revised accordingly. [L134, L314, L308]

Comment: Discussion is broad and touches on interesting topics like innovation systems and strategy, but is quite long and sometimes repetitive. More important, it does not always link back to the results clearly. Since this is qualitative research, it would be better to organize the discussion based on findings (capital, knowledge types, etc.) and discuss them with support of the theory. Some theories are mentioned, but there’s not enough comparison with other studies, like Bull’s case studies. Including newer literature on timber innovation, SMEs or circular economy would also improve the paper a lot. Try to say directly whether findings confirm, differ or add to previous studies.

Response: The Discussion section has been revised to reduce repetition, improve focus, and better align with the main findings of the study. We have incorporated more explicit comparisons with prior studies, including Bull’s case studies, and integrated recent literature on timber innovation, SMEs, and circular economy (see References 40-42, 45).

Comment: Conclusion is generally good and summarizes firm’s strengths well, but it doesn’t fully answer two aims mentioned at the beginning – adding to general knowledge and seeing if the results are useful for other firms. Authors should address this more clearly.

Response: We have clarified and slightly revised the stated aims in the Introduction (L83) to better align with the scope and contribution of the study. Correspondingly, the Conclusion section has been updated (L665) to more explicitly address both aims.

Comment: Literature used is mostly relevant, but many sources are dated, and key concepts introduced in the discussion such as innovation systems, open innovation, and circular economy are not sufficiently supported by recent or specific references.  Since the paper talks about modern issues like sustainability and innovation systems, more recent international sources from last 5–7 years should be added. Also, try to connect the literature more directly to results for a stronger impact.

Response: We have expanded the literature base by adding several additional references in both the Introduction and Discussion sections.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

l.39. Global and Australian demand for wood products grew significantly between 2019 and 2022

I'd suggest specifying exactly which products showed demand growth. Due to the pandemic, I would suggest that these are mostly packaging materials and wood for construction.

You need to elaborate on why the installation of a spindleless lathe is an innovation. Please, provide a clear description of the scale of this innovation. Is this type of spindleless lathe used anywhere else in the world? Is it not used in Australia? Is a firm of this size not using such a spindleless lathe? Or does the fact that a firm had no spindleless lathes before, but has one now, qualify as an innovation? Does the firm hold a patent for this invention?

Overall, the manuscript is more suited to the genre of business literature than to an academic article. Some sections, such as 3.1.5 and 3.1.6, are written in general terms and could apply to almost any company. The results of the study are actually value judgements based on questionnaires. While they may be of interest to business representatives, they do not fulfil the criteria of scientific knowledge. They cannot be either falsified or verified. 

Author Response

Comment: I'd suggest specifying exactly which products showed demand growth. Due to the pandemic, I would suggest that these are mostly packaging materials and wood for construction.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. The manuscript has been revised to specify the product categories that experienced demand growth during the pandemic, as suggested. [L43–45].

Comment: You need to elaborate on why the installation of a spindleless lathe is an innovation. Please, provide a clear description of the scale of this innovation. Is this type of spindleless lathe used anywhere else in the world? Is it not used in Australia? Is a firm of this size not using such a spindleless lathe? Or does the fact that a firm had no spindleless lathes before, but has one now, qualify as an innovation? Does the firm hold a patent for this invention?

Response: We have added a new paragraph to further elaborate on this aspect, providing additional context and clarification to strengthen the argument. [L273–280]

Comment: Overall, the manuscript is more suited to the genre of business literature than to an academic article. Some sections, such as 3.1.5 and 3.1.6, are written in general terms and could apply to almost any company. The results of the study are actually value judgements based on questionnaires. While they may be of interest to business representatives, they do not fulfil the criteria of scientific knowledge. They cannot be either falsified or verified. 

Response: The authors acknowledge the challenge of positioning interdisciplinary research that bridges practice and theory. A new section has been added to the Discussion (Section 4.6, L653) to reflect on the nature and limitations of the study’s qualitative approach, including its relevance to applied contexts and how value-laden insights contribute to broader understanding within the constraints of qualitative inquiry.         

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is interesting and shows how to present a relevant case study on innovation adoption in the Australian timber industry amid declining native forest resources. However, its potential impact is significantly hampered by structural disorganization, a lack of critical analysis linking theory to case findings, methodological weaknesses, premature claims regarding innovation success, and underdeveloped arguments. My detailed comments and recommendations related to the paper are presented below. 

1. The introduction states the research aims but lacks a concise, overarching thesis articulating the paper’s original contribution.
2. The application of RBV is descriptive (listing RTA's resources) but lacks critical analysis using Barney’s VRIN criteria (Value, Rarity, Inimitability, Non-substitutability) or clear linkage to how these resources specifically enabled sustained competitive advantage or successful innovation in practice.
3. Minimal information on interview conduct (duration, guide development process, ethical approval), transcription process (beyond mentioning Word), and specific NVivo analysis procedures (coding strategy, how themes were derived). Heavy reliance on senior management and consultant risks bias towards positive narratives. No mention of seeking diverse perspectives (e.g., shop floor, external critics).
4.  Frames outcomes as conclusions despite the innovation's unproven status. Primarily restates descriptive results (resources, knowledge levels) rather than synthesizing key theoretical or practical insights derived from the case analysis.
5. Jumps between innovation systems, resource push, alternative business mindsets, social license, and circular economy without a clear central argument linking back to the case findings and research questions.
6. Only briefly alludes to the innovation's status. Fails to adequately address key limitations: single case study design limits generalizability; small, potentially biased interview sample; recency bias in interviewee accounts; lack of objective performance data; RTA's unique capital situation (compensation payments, group support) limiting applicability.

7. You need to discuss the limitations of your research in the Conclusion section.

   In brief, I suggest that this manuscript reconsider after minor revisions.

Author Response

Comment 1: The introduction states the research aims but lacks a concise, overarching thesis articulating the paper’s original contribution.

Response: Thank you for this observation. We have revised the Introduction (L22–29 and 89–101) to include a more explicit statement of the paper’s central argument and contribution, clearly positioning the case within the broader literature on innovation and industry transition.

Comment 2: The application of RBV is descriptive (listing RTA's resources) but lacks critical analysis using Barney’s VRIN criteria (Value, Rarity, Inimitability, Non-substitutability) or clear linkage to how these resources specifically enabled sustained competitive advantage or successful innovation in practice.

Response: We appreciate this comment. While the original research that this case builds upon did not apply the VRIN framework, we agree that further clarification was needed. A VRIN analysis was not applied here as the focus is not on sustained competitive advantage but rather on innovation potential and commercialisation readiness.

Comment 3: Minimal information on interview conduct (duration, guide development process, ethical approval), transcription process (beyond mentioning Word), and specific NVivo analysis procedures (coding strategy, how themes were derived).

Response: Thank you for highlighting this. We have added additional details regarding the interview process and the NVivo coding strategy. See section 2.2.3 for these additions.

Comment X: Heavy reliance on senior management and consultant risks bias towards positive narratives. No mention of seeking diverse perspectives (e.g., shop floor, external critics).

Response: We acknowledge this limitation. The study design was modelled on Bull’s 2005 research. This rationale has been explained more clearly in the revised manuscript (see revamped M&M section).

Comment 4: Frames outcomes as conclusions despite the innovation's unproven status. Primarily restates descriptive results (resources, knowledge levels) rather than synthesizing key theoretical or practical insights derived from the case analysis.

Response: The manuscript has been significantly revised from the Introduction to the Conclusion to better distinguish between observed results and broader interpretations. We have also worked to ensure that the findings are more clearly synthesised with relevant theory, avoiding premature conclusions.

Comment 5: Jumps between innovation systems, resource push, alternative business mindsets, social license, and circular economy without a clear central argument linking back to the case findings and research questions.

Response: The authors acknowledge that the original discussion was fragmented. In the revised version, we have restructured the Discussion section around the key empirical themes and tied these more directly to the case findings and research questions. This has helped improve coherence and theoretical integration.

Comment 6: Only briefly alludes to the innovation's status. Fails to adequately address key limitations: single case study design limits generalizability.

Response: Thank you for this important point. We now explicitly address the limitations of the study- including the single case design, potential bias in participant selection, lack of objective performance data, and the particularities of RTA’s capital situation - in the revised manuscript (see 2.1 case study design and Conclusion).

Comment 7: You need to discuss the limitations of your research in the Conclusion section.

Response: This has been addressed in the Conclusion, where we reflect on the study’s limitations and suggest directions for future research.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made substantial and commendable improvements to the manuscript in response to previous feedback. Most of the major concerns, especially those related to the transparency of the qualitative mehtodology, structure of the theoretical framework, and the linkage between results and discussion, have been addresed effectively.

One minor issue remains: while the coding process is described more clearly, the development of coding categories and how they emerged from the interviw data could still be explained in slightly more detail. A brief table or schematic linking interview questions to thematic results would furter enhance transparency and reproducibility of the qualitative analysis.

Overall, however, these are minor points. The revised manuscript represents a significant improvement .

Author Response

Comment: One minor issue remains: while the coding process is described more clearly, the development of coding categories and how they emerged from the interviw data could still be explained in slightly more detail. A brief table or schematic linking interview questions to thematic results would furter enhance transparency and reproducibility of the qualitative analysis.

Answer: 

Thank you for the suggestion. The authors have made two key revisions to improve transparency and methodological clarity:

Linking Questions to Themes:
We have added a new version of Table 3 that explicitly links the interview questions to the emerging themes. The left column lists the core interview questions, and the right column presents the corresponding themes or codes that emerged from participants’ responses. This allows the reader to more clearly see how the data collection aligned with the thematic analysis. [L323]

Expanding Description of Coding Process:
We have also expanded the Methods/Analysis section to explain how the initial codes were developed. The following text was added:

Initial codes were developed inductively through a line-by-line reading of the transcripts. Patterns were identified based on recurring concepts and participant language. These codes were iteratively refined into broader themes through team discussions, comparison across interviews and with reference to the results of Bull’s [21] work. [L332]

We hope these revisions provide greater clarity around the analytic process and the connection between our data collection and thematic outcomes.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have successfully defended their approach to combining case studies with academic research. I don't have any further comments.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive feedback. The authors appreciated your time and constructive review throughout the process.