Impeding Digital Transformation by Establishing a Continuous Process of Competence Reconfiguration: Developing a New Construct and Measurements for Sustained Learning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

 

this manuscript could have had a good future for delivering your ides, findings and logics, however it is full of quotes and it is impossible to assess you work.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript and provide your feedback. Please find the response to your comment below.  Comment: 

Dear authors

this manuscript could have had a good future for delivering your ides, findings and logics, however it is full of quotes and it is impossible to assess you work.

Response: 

The aim of the paper is to introduce and define the new construct of sustained learning, provide measures solidly based on existing research, and develop existing research further. The quotes are, in our opinion, essential to highlighting the shortcomings of existing constructs and to differentiate our findings from previous research. Therefore, your comment is not understandable, could you please explain to which quotes you refer and why exactly our work is not assessable to your opinion? Thank you!

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research would certainly contribute to the existing knowledge in the arena of digital transformation in all economic sectors. My comments are:

1.      Methodology section mentions (Line 191) Search results was limited to Scopus database only. Why So?

2.      Reasons for limiting the subject social sciences and business, management & accounting, while the authors mention the need for more quantitative research, investigating the mechanisms in new digitally transformed environments, and sectors with less focus on performance and competitive advantages, like public administration or the healthcare sector (Line 59-61)

3.      Authors must present the specific contribution /justification of this research in the healthcare field

4.      While reviewing the literature, it is not clear how the selection results into 3.160 documents? What process followed in exclusion of articles/documents, how the reviewers participated, and articles that made the final list appraised? (Lines 189-196)

5.      The criteria for the selection of group experts should be more specific. Why only 3 countries? Any reasons?

6.      Line 306-307 mentions additional quantitative research was applied to test the distinctiveness of the newly developed construct. Line 312 mentions “212 participants joined the online distributed survey” – the details on how this online survey conducted including the selection of respondents should be highlighted in methodology.

7.      Line 308 mentions that a questionnaire 308 was provided in Prolific (Appendix C). However, appendix C is missing in the manuscript.

8.      In the abstract, it is mentioned that “The important question is: how can individual actors in healthcare be motivated to engage in this transformational process to build and reconfigure relevant competences and establish new learning routines? However, more clarity is required in the manuscript on how authors addressed these questions? It should be made specific in the discussion as well as implications of the findings.

 

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript and provide your feedback. Please find the detailed responses below.

Comment 1: 

Methodology section mentions (Line 191) Search results was limited to Scopus database only. Why So? 

Response: 

The database Scopus includes a large corpus of scientific information (21.000 journals in Scopus, in comparison to 12.000 journals in WoS and is widely applied in the field of social sciences in general and in research concerning digital transformation in specific, see for example Kraus, Schiavone, Pluzhnikova and Invernizzi 2021, Dal Mas, Massaro, Rippa and Secundo 2021.   Comment 2: 

Reasons for limiting the subject social sciences and business, management & accounting, while the authors mention the need for more quantitative research, investigating the mechanisms in new digitally transformed environments, and sectors with less focus on performance and competitive advantages, like public administration or the healthcare sector (Line 59-61)

Response: 

Due to the high number of results, limitations were needed to focus on relevant articles. Learning and new competences in digital transformation were investigated in the context of these subjects (see Huang, Leone, Caporuscio and Kraus, 2020). We believe that we have a solid foundation for the theoretical basis within these subjects.   Comment 3: 

Authors must present the specific contribution /justification of this research in the healthcare field

Response:

Thank you for pointing this out. We added the contribution in line 77

Comment 4:

While reviewing the literature, it is not clear how the selection results into 3.160 documents? What process followed in exclusion of articles/documents, how the reviewers participated, and articles that made the final list appraised? (Lines 189-196)

Response:

We revised this section for more clarity.

Comment 5:

The criteria for the selection of group experts should be more specific. Why only 3 countries? Any reasons?

Response: 

The purposive sampling was conducted based on the authors´ network, established at conferences and the faculty, based on their expertise. In total, 15 persons from 5 countries were asked, and seven agreed to participate. In addition, the German digital research portal “Sciport” was screened for matching expertise. Five experts were contacted, and two agreed to participate. We added more information about the selection criteria, starting from line 210.

Comment 6:

Line 306-307 mentions additional quantitative research was applied to test the distinctiveness of the newly developed construct. Line 312 mentions “212 participants joined the online distributed survey” – the details on how this online survey conducted including the selection of respondents should be highlighted in methodology.

Response:

We revised this in the methodology section.

Comment 7: 

Line 308 mentions that a questionnaire 308 was provided in Prolific (Appendix C). However, appendix C is missing in the manuscript. Response: Thank you for this information, we corrected it. The Appendix was deleted for reasons of simplicity and will be provided on request.    Comment 8: 

In the abstract, it is mentioned that “The important question is: how can individual actors in healthcare be motivated to engage in this transformational process to build and reconfigure relevant competences and establish new learning routines? However, more clarity is required in the manuscript on how authors addressed these questions? It should be made specific in the discussion as well as implications of the findings.

Response:

We agree and address this in the discussion and conclusion section, starting at lines 371 and 436.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Current Topic: The manuscript addresses dynamic capability in digital transformation. The introduction is thorough, though it appears somewhat overwritten, and is adequately supported by references. The methodology is described clearly and precisely. The strength of the study is commendable, and the manuscript is clear and relevant to this field. The tables are transparent and well-presented. The statistical methods and references used to obtain results are appropriately employed. However, the presentation of results feels overly extensive, making it challenging to follow due to the sheer volume of information. It is advisable to extract essential results in alignment with the research objectives. The discussion is clearly articulated in relation to the topic and aims of the research. The conclusion is too lengthy and would benefit from being more concise. Additionally, there are too many references, with several being over five years old.

Overall, the manuscript is engaging and may serve as a valuable resource for other researchers in their work. The main drawback is its excessive length.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript and provide your feedback. Please find the response to your comment below.

Comment: 

The manuscript addresses dynamic capability in digital transformation. The introduction is thorough, though it appears somewhat overwritten, and is adequately supported by references. The methodology is described clearly and precisely. The strength of the study is commendable, and the manuscript is clear and relevant to this field. The tables are transparent and well-presented. The statistical methods and references used to obtain results are appropriately employed. However, the presentation of results feels overly extensive, making it challenging to follow due to the sheer volume of information. It is advisable to extract essential results in alignment with the research objectives. The discussion is clearly articulated in relation to the topic and aims of the research. The conclusion is too lengthy and would benefit from being more concise. Additionally, there are too many references, with several being over five years old. Overall, the manuscript is engaging and may serve as a valuable resource for other researchers in their work. The main drawback is its excessive length.

Response:

Thank you for your feedback. This methodology is quite new, and readers may not be familiar with it. Therefore, we decided to explain in detail. The development of our construct included several steps, which we wanted to describe clearly and transparently. The construct and items should solidly be based on existing research and develop existing research further. The references are in our opinion necessary to differentiate our findings from previous research. The feedback of other reviewers encouraged us for a more detailed description. Therefore, we did our best to simplify the text.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study develops and validates a 'sustained learning' construct in the context of digital transformation. Using expert ratings, CVI analysis, and EFA, it identifies and refines dimensions of mindset, behavior, and improvement. The study demonstrates a solid methodology, but a few areas could be strengthened for greater clarity and broader applicability.

Specific comments and suggestions

1. Expand expert panel and increase rater diversity

   • The CVI analysis relies on a small group of experts, which could limit the representativeness of the item selection process.
   • Consider broadening the panel to include experts from more varied backgrounds (e.g., tech, management) to improve content validity and reduce bias.

2. Clarify overlap between behavior and improvement dimensions

   • EFA suggests overlap between "behavior" and "improvement," indicating these dimensions may not be fully distinct.
   • How about conducting further factor analysis to explore if these two dimensions could be merged or more clearly defined?
   • For instance, re-evaluate items to see if improvement-focused items could be reframed as behavioral outcomes or vv.

3. Justify inclusion criteria more transparently

   • The selection threshold (CVI > 0.78, mean > 5.75) feels arbitrary and doesn't clearly align with the Likert scale.
   • Please provide a brief rationale for these specific thresholds, perhaps referencing typical ranges in similar studies.

4. Broaden sampling for generalizability

   • The sample is limited to employees in Germany, which may not reflect other cultural or work environments.
   • Consider discussing the need to test this construct in other cultural and occupational contexts in future studies.
   • For example, you could suggest replicating the survey in diverse cultural backgrounds, particularly in high-tech, digitally advanced areas like the US or East Asia.

5. Refine wording in improvement dimension

   • The items related to improvement might overlap with general behavioral descriptors, which could weaken their specificity.
   • You could update item wording to describe improvement as an intentional, continuous development action rather than a broad behavior.
   • For example, instead of “seeks feedback,” consider “actively integrates feedback into personal development plans” to capture a more specific improvement focus.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your feedback helped to improve the clarity. Please find the detailed responses below.

Comment 1:

Expand expert panel and increase rater diversity

• • The CVI analysis relies on a small group of experts, which could limit the representativeness of the item selection process.
  • Consider broadening the panel to include experts from more varied backgrounds (e.g., tech, management) to improve content validity and reduce bias.

Response: 

Thank you for pointing this out. The experts were selected primarily based on their experience in developing questionnaires in order to be able to make a qualified assessment of the suitability of the question for measuring the construct. Therefore, experts from the academic context were selected first and foremost. Secondly, expertise in the topic of digital change was required. One of the assistant professors was an IT manager in a commercial enterprise for a long time before taking up this position. To cover a broader spectrum, two managers from companies in the healthcare sector were asked to take part, even as satisfaction was already reached. One is an HR manager, and the other is a manager in the IT department. This purposive sampling is, to our opinion, sufficient to cover the relevant knowledge in the field of interest without a biased selection of experts. Glaser & Strauss (1967) recommend a minimum of 10 experts, in previous research, this step of discussing the initial question pool with just 4 academic researchers as experts (Meske & Jungglas, Investigating the elicitation of employees’ support towards digital workplace transformation, 2020, Behaviour & Information Technology). According to your advice, we clarified the expert-backgrounds (Line 260).

Comment 2:

Clarify overlap between behavior and improvement dimensions

• • EFA suggests overlap between "behavior" and "improvement," indicating these dimensions may not be fully distinct.
  • How about conducting further factor analysis to explore if these two dimensions could be merged or more clearly defined?
  • For instance, re-evaluate items to see if improvement-focused items could be reframed as behavioral outcomes or vv.

Response: We discussed this suggestion based on our results. To our opinion, we can match the questions as follows:

 

Behaviour	I watch explanation videos (e.g. on youtube or other platforms) and/or read additional instructions to improve my knowledge.	Improvement	I acquire new knowledge and skills independently.
Behaviour	When I learn something new about digital technologies, I rethink my previous actions and try to develop them further with the new knowledge.	Improvement	The knowledge I already have helps me to use other technologies
Behaviour	If situations are changing, I adapt my decisions and activities regarding the use of digital technologies.	Improvement	I am willing to invest time and money to integrate new technologies or processes in my daily live.

The action expressed in the items measuring behavioural aspects includes in their content statement an improvement to some extent. For this reason, we decided not to reframe them since the behavioural items are more precise. We added this reasoning for clarification, see line 361.

Comment 3: 

Justify inclusion criteria more transparently

• • The selection threshold (CVI > 0.78, mean > 5.75) feels arbitrary and doesn't clearly align with the Likert scale.
  • Please provide a brief rationale for these specific thresholds, perhaps referencing typical ranges in similar studies.

Response:

We agree with that and revised this section and added references for more transparency, starting with line 288.

Comment 4: 

Broaden sampling for generalizability

• • The sample is limited to employees in Germany, which may not reflect other cultural or work environments.
  • Consider discussing the need to test this construct in other cultural and occupational contexts in future studies.
  • For example, you could suggest replicating the survey in diverse cultural backgrounds, particularly in high-tech, digitally advanced areas like the US or East Asia.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion, we added this limitation and future research agenda in the section starting at line 470.

Comment 5:

Refine wording in improvement dimension

• • The items related to improvement might overlap with general behavioral descriptors, which could weaken their specificity.
  • You could update item wording to describe improvement as an intentional, continuous development action rather than a broad behavior.
  • For example, instead of “seeks feedback,” consider “actively integrates feedback into personal development plans” to capture a more specific improvement focus.

Response: This work is part of a larger project. We are currently developing a questionnaire where sustained learning is one measured construct. We consider this suggestion to redefine these items and test it.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made some changes but they are not enough and thorough.

line 198 Within this resulting documents, an additional search in the article keywords was conducted, search was conducted, ..... (Are they different? What is the difference between them?)

line 366 We are very sorry to notice that the sentence "The action expressed in items measuring behavioural aspects includes in their content statement an improvement to some extent". does not convey any sense.

line 376 in its present way, we do not think one can understand (it might be a matter of punctuation: "We addressed the question, of how individuals can be engaged in digital transformation by, providing insights into the basic elements of sustained learning as a dynamic capability.

Conclusion includes many quotes: digital transformation [10] ,with the basic elements to sense, seize and reconfigure resources to build dynamic capabilities and adapt to transformed workplaces based on routines and behavioural patterns [21]. Another prominent research stream in the digital trans formation investigates knowledge management, competences and learning [58–61] . (six quotes in this part. Then are they the authors' conclusion? No. If this manuscript is a description, then perhaps it might have been accepted).

Though the authors refer to "highlighting the shortcomings of existing constructs and to differentiate our findings from previous research. Therefore, your comment is not understandable, could you please explain to which quotes you refer and why exactly our work is not assessable to your opinion?" we are to state that rather than citing some works they need to be underpinned by one (at least) point of view.

 New, digital processes and business models are promising benefits for cost-containment measures as well as opportunities to improve patient centric care and offer digital services [1, 2]. However, the transformational process is lagging behind expectations. The healthcare sector is characterised by an extremely varied stakeholder structure with very different capabilities [3]. Hospitals may embrace new technological opportunities but investments in cost expensive technological infrastructure could be a barrier [1, 4]. Patients may benefit from digital services, but there is a significant proportion, mostly older people, who do not have the technological equipment or who lack the competences to use these services [5, 6]. Medical doctors or other healthcare providers can be the linchpin in supporting patients and guiding them through the digital offering [7]. However, the openness to integrate new technologies, learning and gaining necessary competences are prerequisites for this [8, 9] . (9 references to scholars in one paragraph): we wanted to know the authors' point.

Some new inclusions lost punctuation (See, e.g., line 236: "The samples comprised part-time fulltime employed Germans The extent, to which the...."; line 262: "The experts were selected from an academic background for a qualified rating of suitability and item development as a key criterion Secondly, expertise in the topic..."

Who are part-time fulltime people? "The samples comprised part-time fulltime employed Germans (Either, or, or  perhaps a matter of punctuation). 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear authors.

It is necessary to acquire punctuation issues. Read the article carefully. Remember that after introducing new ideas or new parts, the previous sentence almost always will need a rereading, revising and editing.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. Please find our detailed responses below. 

Comment 1: 

line 198 Within this resulting documents, an additional search in the article keywords was conducted, search was conducted, ..... (Are they different? What is the difference between them?)

Response:

Thank you for pointing this out, we revised it (Line 194).

Comment 2:

line 366 We are very sorry to notice that the sentence "The action expressed in items measuring behavioural aspects includes in their content statement an improvement to some extent". does not convey any sense.

Response:

We revised this section for more clarity, starting at line 359.

Comment 3:

line 376 in its present way, we do not think one can understand (it might be a matter of punctuation: "We addressed the question, of how individuals can be engaged in digital transformation by, providing insights into the basic elements of sustained learning as a dynamic capability.

Response:

Thank you for your comment, we reworded this, see line 373.

Comment 4:

Conclusion includes many quotes: digital transformation [10] ,with the basic elements to sense, seize and reconfigure resources to build dynamic capabilities and adapt to transformed workplaces based on routines and behavioural patterns [21]. Another prominent research stream in the digital trans formation investigates knowledge management, competences and learning[58–61] . (six quotes in this part. Then are they the authors' conclusion? No. If this manuscript is a description, then perhaps it might have been accepted).

Though the authors refer to "highlighting the shortcomings of existing constructs and to differentiate our findings from previous research. Therefore, your comment is not understandable, could you please explain to which quotes you refer and why exactly our work is not assessable to your opinion?" we are to state that rather than citing some works they need to be underpinned by one (at least) point of view.

Response:

We provide our point of view starting at line 437.

Comment 5:

 New, digital processes and business models are promising benefits for cost-containment measures as well as opportunities to improve patient centric care and offer digital services [1, 2]. However, the transformational process is lagging behind expectations. The healthcare sector is characterised by an extremely varied stakeholder structure with very different capabilities [3]. Hospitals may embrace new technological opportunities but investments in cost expensive technological infrastructure could be a barrier [1, 4]. Patients may benefit from digital services, but there is a significant proportion, mostly older people, who do not have the technological equipment or who lack the competences to use these services [5, 6]. Medical doctors or other healthcare providers can be the linchpin in supporting patients and guiding them through the digital offering [7]. However, the openness to integrate new technologies, learning and gaining necessary competences are prerequisites for this [8, 9] . (9 references to scholars in one paragraph): we wanted to know the authors' point.

Response:

In the introduction section, we start with existing knowledge to explain the current gap in research and provide our point of view starting in line 57.  

Comment 6:

Some new inclusions lost punctuation (See, e.g., line 236: "The samples comprised part-time fulltime employed Germans The extent, to which the...."; line 262: "The experts were selected from an academic background for a qualified rating of suitability and item development as a key criterion Secondly, expertise in the topic..."

Who are part-time fulltime people? "The samples comprised part-time fulltime employed Germans (Either, or, or  perhaps a matter of punctuation). 

Response:

We agree and revised this section.

Comment 7:

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear authors.

It is necessary to acquire punctuation issues. Read the article carefully. Remember that after introducing new ideas or new parts, the previous sentence almost always will need a rereading, revising and editing.

Response:

Thank you for pointing this out. We edited the complete text.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript once again. I am happy to see that all previous comments and remarks have been thoroughly addressed. I appreciate the authors' effort in clarifying and improving the paper, which I found both interesting and insightful.

I would recommend a final review of the recently modified sections to correct some typos and punctuation. Aside from this minor suggestion, I have no further comments.

Thank you for the well-prepared manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Final review of the recently modified sections recommended, there are some small typos and punctuation issues due to correcting or adding to the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you again for your feedback. Your advices helped to improve the paper. 

Comment:

I would recommend a final review of the recently modified sections to correct some typos and punctuation.

Response:

Thank you for your advice. We overworked the complete text.

 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Now we can see that the authors have done the job correctly: not because they wanted to have something said, but because they have what to say.