Fostering Innovative SMEs in a Developing Country: The ALI Program Experience

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have read your manuscript meticulously, and despite investigating a relatively new area, I am afraid your work falls short on many aspects, which I will outline below. You claim you investigate the ALI program in Brazil. I believe the target area is significant, and we could very well learn plenty; however, there are many issues in the manuscript that you are failing to investigate and methodologically fall short. There is a necessary rearrangement in your structure research to meet the minimum and acceptable levels of quality.

Let us start with the ALI program. You have selected to investigate the governmental program for promoting innovation, but historical aspects of the program are missing. When had it started? What were the selection criteria for businesses to be accepted, and what are the requirements to consider them successful in their role? It seems you are hiding it or did not consider it essential, but this is where you got it wrong, as governmental decisions matter with tangible outcomes. Second, literature is absent from other or similar programs from the international literature. Failing to report any prior literature, which is plenty out there on the web, fills me with scepticism about the quality of your work.

Regarding your structure, you fail to report or be transparent about your methodology in the abstract. In the abstract, you mention that you report your observations. It is my understanding that you are not shadowing the participants. How did you report observations if you are not observing the participants in their work all day and writing transcripts with their actions and behaviours? You also mention in the introduction and in specific in line 35 that you point out the lack of relevant research in Latin America. Very well, but where is your historical data? You investigated the lack of literature and failed or did not think actually to report any data on self-employment percentages in Brazil and how they evolved through time. In line 37, you mention theory assumptions. This is funny as you do not mention any theory in the abstract or anywhere else relevant to your investigation. Moreover, again, not for testing as your philosophy is more or less phenomenological than positivist.

In lines 48-49, some context is missing. Is a governmental program sponsored, as you mentioned below? Is it unclear if the hires are from the businesses or outsiders? Also, are the agents learning or the businesses? If the program is for the agents to learn, we are talking about enhancing the employability of consultants and a program that serves friends/affiliates of the governmental party. It is unclear here, and confusion can stir the imagination in different areas.

In line 68, you mention theoretical background. I think you are confusing the literature review with theory. I think you fail to understand what is theory and literature. Take, for example, a relevant article in your literature (which you can include) from Apergis (2019). Notice that the author uses two theories technology acceptance model (TAM) and the social cognitive theory (SCT). Of course, his positivistic approach allows you to test particular hypotheses you do not need. His literature review encompasses areas from past articles. Nevertheless, literature and theory are two distinct areas. Simple? The literature review needs restructuring as it fails to incorporate different sections, e.g., innovation SME innovation and contexts. To give you an example, lines between 122-128 are confusing. Is this section about the ALI program or books? Also, mentioning frugal innovation is confusing. What do you want to achieve? It seems you are mixing many things. To explain it in layman’s terms to understand what you have eventually cooked was feijao tropeiro when you should have prepared simple farofa. Research is supposed to offer simplicity and remove complexity. You fail here.

The Brazilian context in line 152 should have been in the beginning before theory and briefly mentioned a few things in the introduction. Line 185 should tone down a lot. Is Sao Paolo the greatest state? Wrong use of narrative. As a European who visits Brazil, I think Bahia has a better quality of life, so tone down your language and hold your cavalo.

Methodologically speaking, I fail to understand why you have chosen a descriptive approach. Since you have followed a focused group methodology and a qualitative study, you should have been explorative. Results are extensively underdeveloped. Themes have not been generated, and propositions are not offered. I believe the approach to following a descriptive rather than an exploratory study limits the strengths of this work. Here is where the weakness of the article lies. Another significant area I identify is the lack of transparency on questions asked of your participants. Are the questions based on prior literature or questions you came up with? An appendix on the question should have been included. It is unclear if the authors have followed an ethical approach in their study and that should be demonstrated with the documentation attached in the appendix regarding participant information sheets, participant consent forms, focus group schedule and other documents. Their absence is very disappointing.

Finally, line 376 that the ALI program is successful is too optimistic and almost falls into the realm of idealism and dream. There is one thing we wish and another observed. A more quantitative approach is needed to say about the effectiveness of a program, not a qualitative approach. It would be best if you relied on quantitative searchers who can reply on measuring effectiveness. Qualitative scientists cannot do this and should not. The role of qualitative scientists is to identify propositions for quantitative scientists to test. This work is meagre and not helping your colleagues. I can see you are confused about the role of research, and there is plenty more to learn and study. Happy reading.  

Reference
Apergis, E. (2019). Who is tech savvy? Exploring the adoption of smartphones and tablets: An empirical investigation. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 30(2), 100351.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The issue of SME innovation is topical and interesting. The reviewed article takes up these issues. Therefore, it raises the reader's expectations. However, the presented text hardly satisfies these expectations. The weakness of the presented research is a very small sample - only 5 enterprises. Therefore, it is difficult to expect conclusions that would make a significant contribution to the development of theories on the borderline of which the article's subject matter is located (the theory of entrepreneurship, strategic management, organisational agility). In spite of this, the authors should attempt to concisely indicate in the conclusions actions leading to the expectation contained in the title of the paper 'Fostering Innovative SMEs'. The article does not contain conclusions as such at all. Elements of these can be found in the 'Discussion' chapter.

Furthermore, in the reviewer's opinion, the authors dealt too superficially with the issue of corporate agility. It would be worth extending it to include the reactive and proactive model of agility (the latter particularly relevant in the context of innovation) and also the symptoms of agility, including issues of the ability to identify and exploit market opportunities. Perhaps this will allow a different assessment of whether the SMEs analysed are agile than simply to say that the respondents do not mention the use of agility tools. I also suggest replacing Tab 1 with a concise description of ALI program training.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Fostering Innovative SMEs in a Developing Country: The ALI Program Experience The paper highlights The paper raises the issue that Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) play an important economic role. continuous innovation is a pillar to ensure the survival of SMEs around the world. The paper addresses the public-private ALI (Local Innovation Agent) program, which focuses on training groups of SMEs (during an eight-month training cycle) to implement a continuous innovation process. The paper investigates whether participating SMEs practice innovation processes in their businesses; and what are the difficulties perceived by SMEs in incorporating innovation processes. Based on the existing literature, observations are discussed. Recording and discussing the experience of the paper presented is important for the development of public policies in similar countries and contexts. The paper is sufficiently structured, the research method is detailed, the conclusion and abstract are presented with full content. Structured analysis of the paper: 1- Conception of the work: authors need to have a clear conception of what they want to do and to whom they want to say it. In this case, the authors need to more objectively detail their contribution to the industry and to the literature in the area. 2- Define whether the work is theoretical or practical. 3- Need to delineate with greater precision the originality of the paper. 4- The technical framework is correct and well integrated into the structure of the paper. 5- Theoretical rigor: it must be designed in order to evidence relationships, connections and interdependencies on the phenomenon studied. In other words, it is necessary to review the text integrating concepts that complement each other and serve to respond to the authors' concern. Clearly define the theoretical motivation for choosing the topic. 6- Methodological rigor: for what the researcher proposes to do, the method to be employee needs to be presented as the most suitable, the ideal. Emphasize the success, if any, of the method. 7- Rigor in Data Analysis: it is essential for the excellence of the paper's contribution that the structure of data analysis is improved, supported by citations and examples. 8- Originality: the paper needs to signify the new, the unpublished. Emphasize this. 9- Rigor of Conclusion: use emphasis and assertiveness in the text of the conclusion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The article should be accepted with the following changes:

Literature review note: the author should add a literature review section with the text from 2.1 Theoretical background 

Line 134 – “MVP (Minimum Viable Product)” should be  “Minimum Viable Product (MVP)”

Conclusions note: the author should add a Conclusions section that includes the limits of this research and references to future work.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has improved significantly. The authors need to rearrange their reference list in alphabetical order and they are good. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The article should be accepted with the changes made  by the author.