Digital Transformation in the Chilean Lodging Sector: Opportunities for Sustainable Businesses
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study analyses the digital transformation of the Chilean lodging sector. The study presents digital technologies as a way to improve internal operations as well as marketing strategies. A strong point of the article is the access to primary information of four hotels, with a representation of small hotels as well as large hotel chains. Having said that, the study still has some elements that require improvement. Below I list the most important areas to review.
1 - Fit with the Special issue. Surely, the most important point is that the article cannot be positioned in the product-service innovation literature. The product-service innovation literature calls for product and service innovations as the name suggests. The product-service innovation literature focuses on product companies that add services to their offering, though it can also be that service companies that add products. In the article, there is no reference to any product innovation; it only talks about the inclusion of digital technologies. That is why it is necessary to reposition the article towards digital transformation. Perhaps to get a better fit with the call, author(s) could talk about digital services (instead of product-service innovation). The following article might help.
Vendrell-Herrero, F., Gomes, E., Collinson, S., Parry, G., & Bustinza, O. F. (2018). Selling digital services abroad: How do extrinsic attributes influence foreign consumers ’purchase intentions ?. International Business Review, 27 (1), 173-185.
2- Fit with the journal. It is not clear to me what the relationship of the article with sustainability is. I believe that it is necessary to gain fit with the journal. I propose that the author(s) use the concept of sustainable business (see article by Dyllick and Muff (2016) for a formal definition).
Dyllick, T., & Muff, K. (2016). Clarifying the meaning of sustainable business: Introducing a typology from business-as-usual to true business sustainability. Organization & Environment, 29 (2), 156-174.
3. It is important to explain the method more clearly. The methodology used should be referred to “industry case study with multiple firms”. The author(s) can see how Bigdeli et al (2018) presents this methodology.
Bigdeli, A., Bustinza, O. F., Vendrell-Herrero, F., & Baines, T. (2018). Network positioning and risk perception in servitization: evidence from the UK road transport industry. International Journal of Production Research, 56 (6), 2169-2183.
4. It is not clear what companies do. The impact of digital transformation is explained very well, but it is not explained what type of digital transformations are carried out. For example, it is not clear if all hotels follow the same digital strategy. If this were not the case, it would be very interesting to know if the differences found in the impact are described by the differences in the type or intensity of digital transformation developed by each hotel.
5. This is a qualitative article where the evidence is surprisingly presented as if it were a quantitative article. I recommend that the author(s) do a more in-depth discussion of the managers' perceptions. For this, it would be necessary to include some quotes from the interviews that allow visualizing these perceptions, and improving the narrative and the value of the article.
6. I do not consider appropriate the use of emoticons in tables 2, 3, 4 and 5. The author(s) can use another type of more academic nomenclature. In these tables, it is also customary to describe the nomenclature in a note below the table. An example of how this can be done appears in the Table 3 of the following article. Author(s) could use arrows up and down instead of circles.
Bustinza, O. F., Lafuente, E., Rabetino, R., Vaillant, Y., & Vendrell-Herrero, F. (2019). Make-or-buy configurational approaches in product-service ecosystems and performance. Journal of Business Research, 104, 393-401.
7. The discussion/conclusion merely restates the findings but does not indicate how existing theory needs to be revised or adapted. What can we learn from the study? In this respect, I think author(s) would need to explain more than they do now, how does the study differs from previous work in and what the added value is of the analysis. One useful resource in this context is the editorial by Geletkanycz and Tepper in Academy of Management Journal (2012, vol. 55.2: 256-260) on how to discuss the implications in a discussion/conclusion section. You may want to have a look at that particular editorial. In doing so, author(s) also need to differentiate between implications for theory, implications for managers and limitations/avenues for further research.
Good luck with the revision!
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thanks for your comments and advice in our initial version of the paper. Please, find attached a document with answers to your comments. We believe that in the current version our paper could be accepted. But we are available to improve any section of the paper according to your suggestions.
Best,
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear editor(s),
First of all, I´d like to thank you for the opportunity to read this article on the subject of Digital Transformation in the Chilean lodging sector. This is an interesting topic with an increasing impact in diverse management areas. The objective of the paper is to provide, through a multiple case study, an overview of the key elements that account for the impact that digitalisation has on the way the lodging sector competes in a developing economy. The article provides some interesting results and a rich discussion. However, the article requires to implement some modifications, particularly in terms of providing a theoretical background that fits better with the topic of the research. My suggestions are described in detail in the following report.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thanks for your comments and advice in our initial version of the paper. Please, find attached a document with answers to your comments. We believe that in the current version our paper could be accepted. But we are available to improve any section of the paper according to your suggestions.
Best,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author(s) have addressed all my comments and for me the paper is ready for publication.
Author Response
Many thanks to the reviewer of our work. Your input and comments were key to its improvement. Thank you very much again.
Reviewer 2 Report
(1) Abstract should reflect better the justification of the study. It should explain briefly the context that motivates this study.
(2) The link with PSI as an example of digital innovation in other industries is not a key aspect to be included in the abstract. This analogy between PSI and Digital transformation should be mentioned in the introduction and/or theoretical background, and it shouldn't be spread throughout the article.
(3) Section 2. Digital Transformations in Lodging Firms is still weak at contextualise the concept of digitalization, digital transformation and business innovation, which are essential for this study. Author(s) could consider to extend this section and even to include sub-sections to better review these key concepts.
(4) The review of the literature does not show clearly the research gap that motivates this study.
(5) Author(s) should consider the use of professional proof-reading service to improve English language and style
Author Response
Thank you very much for the new contributions and comments provided. We have adjusted in a new version of the paper different sections of the work according to your comments.
See the attached document with our answers.
Best,
Authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
