Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There is no methodology for this paper. Some research questions are formulated but they are not answered in a solid manner with a proper research involving specialists, experts etc in order to support the study. The results do not have a consistent meaning because of the lack of accuracy and structure of the previous sections (most of all the methodology).

Author Response

Thank you for your comments – they helped towards the upgrade of the quality of the paper.

Regarding methodology: the research conclusions are linked to the structure, the questions and the key challenges: see introduction (has changed considerably), section 3 (has changed considerably) and section 8 / conclusion (has changed considerably); and see the links between them.

Also, updated references were added especially in connection to the orchestra industry (this is the topic; also orchestra industry is a very distinctive type of cultural and creative industries) but also in connection to cultural and creative industries as a whole, and to the companies in general.

Regarding orchestra industry, references derived from academics but also professionals (e.g. conductors) in an attempt to give a more holistic overview of the industry’s situation. Also, interviews were conducted with industry professionals (conductor and musician / orchestra member).

Given the case study’s relevance to the Greek context: the international developments are examined with specific references to the Greek reality; also Greek professionals are selected to be interviewed.

Reviewer 2 Report

 

 

 

Dear authors

 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read your paper. This is an interesting topic in an area of growing significance that is relevant to the  Business Innovation in Orchestra Organizations Supported by Digital Technologies: The Orchestra Mobile Case Study. I have a few suggestions that you may consider as you develop the paper further:

 

Abstract

• It is better to bring more conclusion in the abstract so that the reader understands the subject better.

 

Positioning, purpose, introduction and research gap.

• Poor Introduction: After reading the introduction, I was unfortunately left with the feeling of “so what” as it did little to increase my interest in reading the remainder of the paper. Please focus the Intro much more on convincing readers that your study is needed and has the potential to add significant contributions. The importance and necessity of the issue is not stated, innovation and the exact purpose is not clear!
• Introduction is long. Rewrite according to new references.
• What is the importance and necessity of this research?
• Why this is important for your statistical community?
• Theoretical literature has not been considered and reviewed. It’s better to observe the connection between the contents. Try to explain everything except the topics in order to establish the necessary coherence.

 

 

Discussion.

 

• The discussion section should be separate from the results section. The discussion challenges your findings and determines the degree of compatibility with previous research.
• Suggestions should be made to strengthen the components in these areas.

 

Conclusion contributions.

• Please clarify what are the theoretical and practical contributions of your research.
• What are the results of your research and how can it help your community?
• What are the limitations of research and how are they solved by other researchers?

 

Reference.

• The references used in the theoretical literature are old and authors should use references (2020-2021-2022).
• In some parts, there should be a reference(s) to support your statements or give examples of which studies you referred to, otherwise it sounds like your personal opinions were presented. Overall, the review is descriptive and simple, and much more work is needed to be a very good review.
• Using the following references could be beneficial as these add more evidence to the literature review section:
• Tajpour, M., Hosseini, E., & Salamzadeh, A. (2020). The effect of innovation components on organisational performance: case of the governorate of Golestan Province. International Journal of Public Sector Performance Management, 6(6), 817-830.

 

 

Best of luck with the further development of the paper.

 

Result of this paper: Major revision

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your comments – they helped towards the upgrade of the quality of the paper.

-abstract and introduction: a consistent attempt was made so that they become more interesting for the reader; and also highlight the originality/contribution of the research, both in theory and in practice (for industry professionals).

-revised structure based on a clear separation between the discussion and the conclusions. Your comment on this element was particularly helpful.

-analysis changed to a remarkable extent; also stronger links between research and the current situation: see mostly sections 2, 3 and 8 (conclusion).

-conclusion: changed to a remarkable extent; and with stronger links to the analysis (sections 2 and especially 3).

-updated references were added especially in connection to the orchestra industry (this is the topic; also orchestra industry is a very distinctive type of cultural and creative industries) but also in connection to cultural and creative industries as a whole, and to the companies in general.

Regarding orchestra industry, references derived from academics but also professionals (e.g. conductors) in an attempt to give a more holistic overview of the industry’s situation. Also, interviews were conducted with industry professionals.

[ kindly note that the case study, Orchestra Mobile, was established in 2010, and we tried to compare it with the industry situation of that time; yet, more updated references were used, in an attempt to give a more updated overview of the situation to the reader, while at the same doing justice to the case study comparing its innovations with the situation of 2010. I believe we managed to find the right balance on this ]

Reviewer 3 Report

The geographical area of the analysis could be limited.

It is not clear what type of music (classical, rock, pop,...) this orchesta works.

From a strategic point of view, this company could have created a blue ocean strategy following the methodology of Kim and Mauborgne (2005). It may be interesting to include this reflection in the conclusions. It is a company that does things differently from the competition

Author Response

Thank you for your comments – they helped towards the upgrade of the quality of the paper.

Your comment on the geographical area of the analysis was particularly helpful, and led me to adjust a large part of the analysis and add more material: see section 2.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors, I am very enthusiastic about the topic you have taken up. I myself have been trying to do such research for some time. The issue of how creative industries can and should take advantage of new business models is scientifically necessary and very timely in this era of pandemics. Digital technologies and new market demands are changing the way culture permeates society.
Let me point out elements that I think will make your work more scientifically valuable:
1. your literature is very scarce and not very up-to-date. There needs to be more research on authors and journals that have addressed the topics discussed here in the last ten years.
2. continuing the thread above, I believe that the starting point can and should be the work of the paper's authors: C. Jones, M. Lorenzen, and J. Sapsed (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Creative Industries. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Chapter available online: December 2013. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199603510.013.017). As luck would have it, their work is freely available here: https://bit.ly/353pFDj 
"A Typology of Change in the Creative Industries" and "Four Drivers of Change in Creative Products and Creative Industries" will be an excellent starting point for deepening the theoretical background of your work. It will be a pity if such an interesting case study is not appreciated by insufficient grounding in theory.

I would also suggest improving the parts:
3.1 First of all, it is necessary to refer to sources, e.g., the thesis about the changes in legislation and administration and the decrease in consumption of music. Secondly, this analysis deserves some visualization to enrich it and make it credible. At the moment, this bulleted text is not enough to call it an "analysis".
7. here, I would also recommend considering a graphic visualization of the conclusions, adding value to the text and making it easier to read for readers, including non-scientists.

I wish you all the best.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments – they helped towards the upgrade of the quality of the paper.

1. a large part of analysis was added, using updated references. See mainly sections 2, 3 and 8 (conclusion).

Updated references were added especially in connection to the orchestra industry (this is the topic; also orchestra industry is a very distinctive type of cultural and creative industries) but also in connection to cultural and creative industries as a whole, and companies in general.

Regarding orchestra industry, references derived from academics but also professionals (e.g. conductors) in an attempt to give a more holistic overview of the industry’s situation.

2. yes, see point 1
3. This comment was particularly helpful. The analysis changed to a very large extent (no bullets etc.).
4. This comment was particularly helpful as well. We had it in mind even from the beginning (before the original submission) but we were a bit cautious. Your comment helped us to take the decision and add several graphics – which we believe (looking at it from a new, fresher perspective) help the paper convey its messages in a clearer way, especially to a broader audience including non-scientists.

Reviewer 5 Report

1. The literature review is comprehensive. 2. The case is interesting. 3. Need to add the statements how to link this paper to sustainability. 4. Need to explain more how digital technology can apply to orchestra organizations. 5. Need to explain more in business innovation in this paper. The conclusion: paper accepted.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments – they helped towards the upgrade of the quality of the paper.

Comments addressed.

Also, see introduction (has changed considerably), section 3 (has changed considerably) and section 8 / conclusion (has changed considerably); and see the links between them.

[ Regarding your comment 3: kindly note that the paper will not be included in Sustainability Journal in general, but in a special issue on Cultural and Creative Industries. Yet, your comment was helpful, and was addressed: see mainly section 8 (conclusion) ]

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors improved their paper in a massive way! 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you giving me for the opportunity to read your paper.