Integrating Innovation into Business Strategy: Perspectives from Innovation Managers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper’s title is so general and vague that it is not informative. Please, rethink adding another title.
Abstract. I propose the authors detail the methodology used in the paper.
Page 1. Some sentences are too vague. E.g., “The literature is plenty of research on…”. What do you mean by ‘plenty’? 20? 40? Some references must be included here.
Page 9. Figure 3. The year of publication is missing in the reference.
Page 10. Table 1. Please, correct the references used. The authors have written (Pisano 2019b), which must be Pisano (2019b), and so on. The same problems happen in Tables 2 and 3.
Page 17. 12,5% must be 12.5% in English. Please, correct it.
Page 17. Figure 4. The font size is so tiny that it cannot be read. Please, correct it.
Page 17. Please, unify SWOT and S.W.O.T. and use only one of them
Page 17. Some statements are too imprecise, such as statement 8. “Innovation strategy is composed and affected by factors.” Which factors? Please, be more accurate with your analysis.
Page 17. The authors include a three-fold classification related to factors (“Approach,” “Thought,” “Observation”), but the authors supporting these ideas are missing in the paper. Please, add them.
Page 18. Please, rewrite statement 9 as it is difficult to understand.
Page 18. Some ideas are too vague. For example, “The interviewees answered in a diverse mode. Only one declared… Another one explained,… The others…”. Please, write these sentences in a scientific style.
Page 20. The authors have written, “… the number of companies is eight”. Which ones? Please, detail it.
Appendix A. I suggest the authors include a large part of this Appendix to enrich the Methodology section.
References. Please, unify how references are enumerated.
It is a pity that the authors have not used qualitative analysis programs like Atlas-Ti, and this fact would have enriched the analysis carried out in the paper. If possible, I suggest the authors add some results using this program or another similar one.
Author Response
Please see the attachment, thank you!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The reviewed paper represents a qualitative study of the interrelations between innovation, managerial practices, and strategy. The authors have done an extensive literature review presenting an analysis of the common definitions of innovation and they are all in shaping the long-term operational outcomes of businesses. Several findings are presented as a contribution of the paper. To start with, the authors demonstrate the definitions of innovation used in the literature are quite heterogeneous which causes both scientists and practitioners to have a different understanding and how to manage innovation and how to incorporate innovation in the long term strategy of the business. Secondly, since it is common for businesses to implement strategies for managing innovation at division level, there may be no centralized management of the processes related to innovation within the company. As a result, the company may be losing track of the diverse innovation processes which are happening within separate divisions and may as a result misallocate resources or miss out on valuable opportunities which may arise out of synergies arising out of innovation activities implemented at division levels.
The authors identify several problems which may require further analysis in order to improve the way in which managers incorporate innovation into their long term strategy.
the paper connects and unites several topics which are usually analyzed separately in empirical literature as well as within theoretical studies. In particular, these topics include innovation management, business strategy, managerial practices, technology management, business modeling solutions.
The study relies on qualitative methodology including interviews with senior management and an extensive literature review. This methodology appears to be appropriate to the task undertaken by the authors even though it has some shortcomings which may preclude the generalization of the obtained results.
The literature review provided in the paper is sufficient and quite extensive. Overall, I find this paper to be quite consistent, coherent, and cogent at the present stage. Some extra proof reading may be necessary at the final stage before publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment, thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. The Abstract provides a good overview of the paper's main findings. However, it could be improved by including a clear statement on the paper's main contribution or implications for future research or practice. For example, the paper could suggest specific ways in which companies can better integrate their innovation departments into their core business strategy, or how they can better define and measure innovation in their organization.
2. The introduction provides a clear and concise overview of the problem of low innovation rates in European SMEs and the importance of an effective innovation strategy in business success. One suggestion for improvement would be to provide more specific information about the surveyed innovation managers and directors of large companies who are the focus of the research, such as the number of respondents and their industries or sectors. This additional detail would help readers better understand the context and relevance of the study.
3. The section on "State of the Art" provides an extensive and informative overview of the concept of innovation and its various definitions. However, it would be beneficial to the reader if the authors could include some examples to illustrate the types of innovation discussed in the section. This would provide a more concrete understanding of the different ways innovation can manifest and help readers apply the definitions to real-world scenarios.
4. The Methodology section could be improved by briefly discussing the criteria used for selecting the experts and managers interviewed for the study. This could help readers better understand the perspective of the interviewees and the relevance of their insights to the research focus of the study.
5. The "Results, discussion and future work" section is well-structured and informative, but here are two comments to improve it:
The section could benefit from more detailed explanations or examples to support the statements made in the results section. For instance, it would be helpful to provide some examples of how the different definitions of innovation can impact a company's understanding and relevance of innovation in business.
In the future work section, it would be helpful to include more specific details on the next steps the researchers plan to take to address the limitations identified in the study. Providing more concrete examples or research questions could help readers better understand the direction of future research.
Statement 3 could benefit from more specific examples to illustrate the benefits of innovation for customers, businesses, and employees. Providing concrete examples would make the statement more compelling and help readers better understand the impact of innovation on different stakeholders.
In Statement 4, it would be helpful to provide more information about why some companies do not have a clear innovation strategy. Is it because they do not see the value of such a strategy, or is it due to other factors such as lack of resources or knowledge? Providing more context would help readers understand the challenges that companies face in developing and implementing an innovation strategy.
The interviews mentioned in Statement 6 seem to suggest that there is a gap between the conceptual framework presented in the literature and the way innovation strategies are actually implemented in practice. It would be valuable to explore this gap in more detail and offer insights on how to bridge it.
6- Citations should be corrected (check for correct style, multiple references should be combined).
7- The font of figures is too small; it needs to be consistent with the journal template and style.
8- Research questions, contributions and research gaps should be clearly highlighted in the introduction section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment, thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Congrats on your work. I recommend publication.
