Does a Feedforward Orientation Provide Competitive Advantages Under Disruptive Conditions? A Review of Control Literature with an Illustrative Case

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1) The authors must completely redo the Abstract to include the study's background, objectives, methodology, findings, and limitations.

2) Although it is a classic reference, please do not include a 1965 reference in the paper. 

3) Please include the figures in the corresponding place. 

4) Please reorganize the entire Introduction since a good part of it is part of the Literature Review.

5) Make the objective of the paper more straightforward in the Introduction.

6) Introduce the title and source in the tables. Why did the authors include the figures after the references? Please see the Instructions for Authors.

7) Introducing the subsection Concluding Remarks within the Conclusions section does not make sense.

8) Some information in the references is missing.

9) Figure 2 is cut off. Only a part of it is visible

Author Response

Reviewer 1

• The authors must completely redo the Abstract to include the study's background, objectives, methodology, findings, and limitations:

This has been done.

The paper has been recast to highlight the role of feedforward control models in strengthening organizational capabilities and developing dynamic capabilities which enable organizations to better cope and respond to wicked problems that frequently arise during periods of environmental disruptions. This objective has been restated at several points in the manuscript. Wicked problems have been mentioned on page 2 (multiple times), page 3 (multiple mentions), page 6 (multiple times), page 8, page 15 and page 18. Likewise, societal disruptions have been mentioned on page 4, page 6, page 8 & page 9 of the manuscript. The repeated use of these two key words enunciates the importance that this revision has placed on addressing the primary focus of this special issue, namely how can organizations cope/deal with wicked problems and societal disruptions.

The abstract has also been rewritten to reflect this.

Since this is a conceptual paper, there were no methods employed or findings to report. However, in conducting the literature review we used the PRISM technique (that one of the reviewers helpfully brought to our attention. We wish to thank the reviewer for their insight. Once again, we note having used the PRISM technique in our literature review. This is mentioned on pages 4 and 5. Additionally, there are two references for this technique included in our references.   

The theme of our article fits with item 3 in the Special Issue ‘Call for Papers’.

Thank you for this helpful suggestion!

• Although it is a classic reference, please do not include a 1965 reference in the paper:

This has been done. Anthony (1965) has been deleted in the present version. In our initial submission, we included exhaustive coverage of all the seminal articles on Control theory (primarily to trace its cybernetic historical origins and subsequent evolution). Undoubtedly some of these early classic references were redundant for the purposes of this article. We have accordingly deleted them.

Thank you for this helpful suggestion! 

• Please include the figures in the corresponding place:

The figures and table have now been introduced into the main body of the manuscript (as per the MDPI journal’s style guidelines).

Thank you for your suggestion!

• Please reorganize the entire Introduction since a good part of it is part of the Literature Review:

The Introduction section has been rewritten. We have moved most of the detailed discussion on feedback and feedforward models to the Literature review section. However, some coverage of these topics had to be included earlier on, primarily to improve the readers’ understanding so that they could follow the manuscript to the point where we state our primary research questions on page 4.

Thank you for the suggestion!

• Make the objective of the paper more straightforward in the Introduction:

This has been done. The paper’s goals have been discussed in paras 2 and 3 on page. We hope that is sufficiently clear now.

Thank you!

• Introduce the title and source in the tables:

This comment was not clear. In our earlier version we discussed all the authors who had referred to each of the dimensions stated in table 1. In this version we eliminated that detailed listing for the sake of clarity and included only some seminal work. This was in the interests of brevity and was also prompted by our desire to include more of the more recent and relevant work in areas such as strategic foresight and strategic control.

The figures are from standard representations of feedforward and feedback controls on the web (slightly modified by us). Figure 1b is adapted from Preble (1997).

Thank you for bringing this to our attention!  

Why did the authors include the figures after the references? Please see the Instructions for Authors:

All the figures have been moved into the appropriate places in the manuscript. This is within the style guidelines of the journal. They are no longer located after the references.

Thank you!

• Introducing the subsection Concluding Remarks within the Conclusions section does not make sense:

Including an additional concluding remarks section (in addition to Conclusions) was redundant and was an oversight. Thank you for pointing this out. That section has been eliminated in this version. Its contents have now been moved into the Conclusions section.  

Thank you for this helpful suggestion!

• Some information in the references is missing:

We have rechecked the reference list. Some older, superfluous references have been eliminated. Other new ones have been added. The reference list now contains only those references that have been cited in the paper. They have been checked for accuracy.

Thank you.

• Figure 2 is cut off. Only a part of it is visible:

Figure 2 has been reformatted and moved into the main body of the paper (as the journal requires). It is now completely visible.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention!

Your suggestions have been invaluable in improving the quality of the paper.    

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.       Please consider to reformulate (and shorten) the title. I think cybernetic control models and dynamic capabilities should be part of the title.

2.       The last sentence in the Abstract is not necessary.

3.       You argue that there is a time lag in classic feedback systems, such a strategic planning, which is a big disadvantage compared to feedforward systems (Fig 1a and 1b). However, control does not only take place at the end of the implementation but also permanently during implementation. This has been the case at least, since quality management systems have been installed in organizations.

4.       I see a strong relationship between your forward systems and STRATEGIC FORESIGHT to which you don’t refer to yet. The rich strategic foresight literature already discusses all the

5.       You conducted a literature review. Today’s standard are systematic literature reviews, using a PRISM statement. Please add that. Otherwise your review process is completely untransparent and not replicable.

6.       You have a strong focus on Zara. So, methodologically, this is a single case study. Here too, a methodology section is required for transparency and replicability. In particular, how did you collect the data? How did you analyze the data?

7.       The topic of dynamic capabilities come somewhat unexpected. How did you arrive there?

8.       Many references are seminal but very old. You also need to refer to the latest literature.

9.       Unfortunately, only a little part of Fig. 2 was displayed in the PDF, so I can’t comment on it.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Please consider to reformulate (and shorten) the title: I think cybernetic control models and dynamic capabilities should be part of the title.

The title of the paper has been changed to ‘Can Cybernetic Control Models provide Competitive advantages under Disruptive Conditions? Yes: A Review of Control Literature with an Illustrative Case’.

Thank you for suggesting this.

2. The last sentence in the Abstract is not necessary:

The abstract has been completely rewritten.

Thank you for your suggestion.

3. You argue that there is a time lag in classical feedback systems, such as strategic planning, which is a big disadvantage compared to feedforward systems (Fig 1a and 1b). However, control does not only take place at the end of the implementation but also permanently during implementation. This has been the case at least, since quality management systems have been installed in organizations:

That is very true. In addition to quality management systems (which you mention), there are many other models of control systems that have been discussed in the literature and used at different times. Examples of these are: bureaucratic control, behavior control, clan control, top down versus bottom-up control, real-time or concurrent control, interactive control, etc. These have all been briefly mentioned on page 7 of the article. However, as we state there, we chose to focus our discussions on feedback and feedforward controls (for the reasons we state there). Moreover, at a base level, many organizational control systems still rely on the classic cybernetic feedback control model as a starting point.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

4. I see a strong relationship between your forward systems and STRATEGIC FORESIGHT to which you don’t refer to yet. The rich strategic foresight literature already discusses all the: We have modified the manuscript to include Strategic Foresight (and related references) as an important component of feedforward control (please see pages 4-5 of the manuscript as well as other references on SF on other pages of this revised manuscript). The addition of Strategic Foresight to the concept of feedforward orientation strengthens/highlights our contribution.

Thank you for this suggestion!  

5. You conducted a literature review. Today’s standard are systematic literature reviews, using a PRISM statement. Please add that. Otherwise your review process is completely untransparent and not replicable:

We have added PRISM references on pages 3 and 4 under Literature Review (as well as at several other places in the manuscript). Your suggestion was v. helpful! Thank you for this suggestion.

6. You have a strong focus on Zara. So, methodologically, this is a single case study. Here too, a methodology section is required for transparency and replicability. In particular, how did you collect the data? How did you analyze the data?

We only include Zara used as an illustrative example. The study focused primarily on feedback and feedforward control. Zara exhibited these attributes (especially feedforward control characteristics) in generous proportions. We only describe Zara’s behaviors vis-à-vis feedforward characteristics. We used the case techniques described by Christensen & Carlisle, (2009); Eisenhardt, (1989); Mintzberg, (1989). Zara was not the focus of our study. But its feedforward orientation was. All the information on Zara was obtained from publicly available sources in the media (as well as from available sources in academia), the company’s website and reports and documents which the company has filed periodically with regulatory authorities in Europe and elsewhere.

There was no other formal data analysis conducted. All the discussions and inferences on Zara were all based on observation, recording and inferences drawn from these publicly available sources, in accordance with the guiding principles on conducting case research suggested by the above-cited authors.

Thank you for this suggestion!

7. The topic of dynamic capabilities come somewhat unexpected. How did you arrive there?

The capacity to develop dynamic capabilities becomes especially important when firms encounter unexpected turbulence or discontinuities in the environment and face wicked problems. This is in line with the theme of this special issue (organizational responses in times of societal disruptions). Zara had already built a successful business model in ‘fast-fashion’ retailing based on a set of resources and capabilities (which are described on pages 8-13). However, like all other firms, they were confronting a combination of wicked problems and strategic discontinuities (during the Covid-19 pandemic). They had to adapt and develop new capabilities to survive (as described in the section on Dynamic capabilities beginning on page 13). Instead of being overwhelmed and going under, they pivoted and sensed, seized and reconfigured their existing resources, capabilities and dynamically developed new ones, which enabled them to survive and become competitive again. That is how and why the development of dynamic capabilities is relevant to the paper.

Thank you for bringing up this important point!

8. Many references are seminal but very old. You also need to refer to the latest literature.

True. However, the cited literature on feedforward and feedback control systems is dated primarily because there has not been much attention paid to, or work done in organizational control recently. This may primarily be because the topic of control has not been considered as contemporary. Instead, there is more attention paid to newer topics like Strategic Foresight (also cited in the paper). Nevertheless, as pointed out on page 17, all organizations ‘have a continued need for direction setting, regulation and control across their different subunits, functions, and in dispersed locations, at different times during their progression through the stages of development’. These organizations are also more global, geographically dispersed, operate in fast-changing, complex environments, have outsourced much of their operations and have entered into multiple strategic alliances. All of this adds to the need for greater ‘coherence, direction setting, coordination and control’. It would be ‘short-sighted and inappropriate to completely discard traditional control models because they are viewed as being inapplicable, ineffective, or obsolete. It is incumbent on both practitioners as well as control theorists to collaborate and develop newer paradigms of control based on ideas that borrow from alternative disciplines (Oliver, 1993), natural systems (Bogart, 1980) and other observable phenomena in the environment’ (p. 18).

Thank you for bringing up this important point.

9. Unfortunately, only a little part of Fig. 2 was displayed in the PDF, so I can’t comment on it:

Figure 2 has been modified/recast and inserted into the main body of the paper on page 3.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work does not conduct a systematic review of the academic literature; there is no selection of specific works, no subsequent bibliometric analysis, and no thematic analysis. Therefore, I propose a change in the approach of the paper. In my opinion, the idea of presenting a review should be discarded; instead, the case method should be adopted to conduct an analysis of Zara. The theoretical part can be retained, but not as a proper review. Instead, it should be presented as the theoretical framework for the case analysis of Zara. A methodological section on the case method should be prepared, and then the findings from Zara should be presented as results. Since what I suggest is a complete overhaul of the work, this manuscript is rejected, but with the understanding that the authors may address the points raised if they deem it appropriate and resubmit it to initiate a new review process.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

This work does not conduct a systematic review of the academic literature; there is no selection of specific works, no subsequent bibliometric analysis, and no thematic analysis. Therefore, I propose a change in the approach of the paper.

Thank you for bringing up this issue. However, we respectfully submit that an exhaustive review of the literature (both retrospective and current work) on feedback and feedforward cybernetic control models was conducted, even in the original submission. Additionally, this revision incorporated some of the newer techniques (viz., PRISM) used in conducting literature reviews. These new approaches also included surveys of seminal work (in control) as well as thematic searches.

In my opinion, the idea of presenting a review should be discarded; instead, the case method should be adopted to conduct an analysis of Zara. The theoretical part can be retained, but not as a proper review. Instead, it should be presented as the theoretical framework for the case analysis of Zara.

The detailed review of control literature that was included in the original submission has been considerably reduced. Instead, more attention has been paid to the case of Zara and how it made the necessary adjustments that were called for in the face of environmental disruptions. These adjustments deal with the topic of how organizations respond to environmental disruptions, the theme of this special issue. However, ours is not a case study on Zara. A case study is more descriptive, open-ended and uses the firm as the focal point/unit of analysis. There is no apriori theoretical lens(es) employed in providing the description in a case study. In contrast, this work is based on feedback and feedforward control models and how those attributes can be effectively employed in the face of environmental disruptions. Zara was only introduced as a descriptive example, since it displayed feedforward control model attributes. Moreover, its responses to the environmental vicissitudes that if faced were instructive. The narrative links traits that Zara displayed to feedforward control attributes described in the literature. 

Thank you for bringing up this point!!

A methodological section on the case method should be prepared, and then the findings from Zara should be presented as results.

As pointed out above, this is not a case study on Zara. Nevertheless, we were guided by important principles in conducting case research as described by multiple authors who have used and written on the case method (Christensen & Carlisle, 2009; Eisenhardt, 1989; Mintzberg, 1989). We used their work as guidance.

Thank you for your suggestion.

Since what I suggest is a complete overhaul of the work, this manuscript is rejected, but with the understanding that the authors may address the points raised if they deem it appropriate and resubmit it to initiate a new review process.

We respectfully disagree with your decision to reject the manuscript. As indicated in the point above, we did not conduct a case study which would have begun with Zara as the starting point. Instead, we began with a review of the literature (viz., articles) on feedforward and feedback control systems. From these articles, we identified features and compared the differences between these two modalities of control (as described in the literature and shown in table 1). Then we identified a company (Zara) that has consistently displayed the feedforward control attributes in its operations. We specifically identify organizational routines and capabilities that Zara employed in its strategic processes (both internal as well as external). We then discussed how Zara has outperformed all its competitors in its business segment (fast-fashion’ retailing) from the time of its founding until 2020 (when the Covid19 pandemic struck). We suggest that its superior performance can be attributed to its consistent feedforward orientation.

The Covid-19 pandemic represented an external environmental discontinuity/shock. It had an industry-wide impact that negatively affected the performance of all ‘fast-fashion’ competitors, including Zara. Zara’s performance also declined precipitously during the pandemic. However, it recovered swiftly and developed new capabilities that enabled it to recover its performance and enabled it to compete in new arenas like online retailing, with a newer set of online competitors. In order to do so, it had to restructure its business model and develop a newer, fresh set of capabilities, which we characterize as dynamic capability development. This labelling is in accordance with how dynamic capabilities are developed through sensing, seizing and reconfiguring, as described in the literature. Arguably Zara demonstrated these attributes as it pivoted towards responding to the pandemic.  

Thank you for all your insights and helpful suggestions!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. I recommend the authors specify the particular authors they are referring to with “op. cit” in rows 415 and 446, among other places. This will provide a more precise understanding and enhance the overall quality of the manuscript.

2. I encourage the authors to include a more diverse range of authors between rows 376 and 505. Currently, Varma (2017) and Harbott (2021) are repeated many times, and adding more authors will enrich the research and make it more inclusive.

3. Instead of simply stating that Inditex is the parent of Zara (row 572), I suggest you name the companies that make up the Inditex group and then briefly explain why you have chosen Zara out of them. This will enhance the clarity and depth of your writing, making you more knowledgeable and confident in your work.

4. The sections “Implications” and “Directions for Future Research” are subsections within the Conclusions section. Therefore, they should be 3.1 and 3.2 and not 4 and 5. 

Author Response

Comments from Reviewer 1:

1. I recommend the authors specify the particular authors they are referring to with “op. cit” in rows 415 and 446, among other places. This will provide a more precise understanding and enhance the overall quality of the manuscript.

Response: Thank you. I have complied with your suggestion.

2. I encourage the authors to include a more diverse range of authors between rows 376 and 505. Currently, Varma (2017) and Harbott (2021) are repeated many times, and adding more authors will enrich the research and make it more inclusive.

Response: Thank you! I have included more authors between rows 376 and 505 as you suggested. I have also gone through a number of HBSP cases on Zara (which I am familiar with) that systematically verify and substantiate the information that I have provided on Zara. However, I have not included those citations in this manuscript because of copyright restrictions.

3. Instead of simply stating that Inditex is the parent of Zara (row 572), I suggest you name the companies that make up the Inditex group and then briefly explain why you have chosen Zara out of them. This will enhance the clarity and depth of your writing, making you more knowledgeable and confident in your work.

Response: Thank you! I have now listed the 7 companies that comprise the Inditex Corporation. In addition, I have stated the specific reason why I chose Zara for the analysis. This is the most important company in the group and also the most important. This insertion is on line 576.

4. The sections “Implications” and “Directions for Future Research” are subsections within the Conclusions section. Therefore, they should be 3.1 and 3.2 and not 4 and 5. 

Response: Thank You! These subsections (viz., ‘Implications’, ’Directions for Future Research’) have been renumbered as subsections as you suggested.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your revision.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Comments from Reviewer 2:

1. I recommend the authors specify the particular authors they are referring to with “op. cit” in rows 415 and 446, among other places. This will provide a more precise understanding and enhance the overall quality of the manuscript.

Response: This has been implemented as advised. Where a publication is being referenced multiple times, I have used the abbreviated (first author, op. cit., publication year label), instead of repeating all the individual authors associated with the publication.

2. I encourage the authors to include a more diverse range of authors between rows 376 and 505. Currently, Varma (2017) and Harbott (2021) are repeated many times, and adding more authors will enrich the research and make it more inclusive.

Response: Thank you! A more diverse set of authors have been included between rows 376 and 505, as advised. I have also gone through a number of HBSP cases on Zara (which I am familiar with) that systematically verify and substantiate the information that I have provided on Zara. However, I have not included those citations in this manuscript because of copyright restrictions.

3. Instead of simply stating that Inditex is the parent of Zara (row 572), I suggest you name the companies that make up the Inditex group and then briefly explain why you have chosen Zara out of them. This will enhance the clarity and depth of your writing, making you more knowledgeable and confident in your work.

Response: Thank you! I have listed the 7 companies that comprise the Inditex Corporation. In addition, I have stated the specific reason why I chose Zara for the analysis.

4. The sections “Implications” and “Directions for Future Research” are subsections within the Conclusions section. Therefore, they should be 3.1 and 3.2 and not 4 and 5. 

Response: Thank You! These subsections (viz., ‘Implications’, ’Directions for Future Research’ have been renumbered as subsections under Conclusions, as you suggested.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the opportunity to review this work again. However, it appears that the authors have not addressed any of my previous comments. While this work could potentially make an interesting chapter in a book, I believe it lacks the necessary elements to qualify as a journal article, as it does not adhere to the scientific method.

For instance, it is unclear where the information presented about Zara originates. Are the findings based on a study conducted using a scientific approach? Moreover, is this study replicable?

Regrettably, I must reiterate my recommendation to decline this manuscript for publication in the journal.

 

Author Response

Comments from Reviewer 3:

 

Thanks for the opportunity to review this work again. However, it appears that the authors have not addressed any of my previous comments. While this work could potentially make an interesting chapter in a book, I believe it lacks the necessary elements to qualify as a journal article, as it does not adhere to the scientific method.

Response: Thank you for your valuable inputs. However, I respectfully disagree with your comment that this does not qualify as a journal article. I began by conducting an exhaustive review of the literature (viz., published academic articles) on feedforward and feedback control systems. From the above articles, I identified features of feedforward versus feedback controls, and compared the differences between these two modalities of control (as described in the literature and as shown in table 1 of the manuscript). I then identified a company (viz., Zara) that has consistently displayed the described feedforward control attributes in its ongoing operations. Additionally, I identify specific organizational routines and capabilities that Zara has employed in its strategic processes (both internal as well as external). I then discussed how Zara has outperformed all its competitors in its business segment (fast-fashion’ retailing) from the time of its founding until 2020 (when the Covid19 pandemic struck). I then proposed that its superior performance can be partly attributed to its consistent feedforward orientation.

The Covid-19 pandemic represented an external environmental discontinuity/shock that affected all companies worldwide. It had an industry-wide impact that negatively affected the performance of all ‘fast-fashion’ competitors, including Zara. Zara’s performance also declined precipitously during the pandemic. However, it recovered swiftly and developed new capabilities that enabled it to recover its performance and enabled it to compete in new arenas like online retailing, with a newer set of online competitors. In order to do so, Zara had to restructure its business model and develop a newer, fresh set of capabilities, which I characterized as dynamic capability development. This labelling is in accordance with how dynamic capabilities are developed through sensing, seizing and reconfiguring, as described in the literature. Arguably Zara demonstrated these attributes as it pivoted towards responding to the exigencies if faced during the pandemic.

I am disappointed that you think this article lacks the necessary elements to qualify as a journal article and that it does adhere to the scientific method. With regard to what is the ‘scientific method’, I found the Nosek, Ebersole, DeHaven, & Mellor (2018) PNAS article on the pregistration revolution (referenced below) particularly useful.  

Thank you for all your insights!

 

For instance, it is unclear where the information presented about Zara originates. Are the findings based on a study conducted using a scientific approach? Moreover, is this study replicable?

Response: All the information provided about Zara is from articles published in the business press. In addition, I have used information on Zara that has been published in numerous Harvard Business School Publishing cases (which I am familiar with). Those cases (which I am unable to refer to in the manuscript because of copyright restrictions) substantiate and verify most of what I have stated in the manuscript about Zara. These HBSP cases have been used by faculty worldwide, to teach their strategy classes over time. Thus the information presented on Zara is tenable and up-to-date. There are no findings to present like in a conventional empirical study. This is not a case study on Zara, per se.  Nevertheless, as I pointed out in my earlier response, I was guided by important principles described for conducting case research, as described by multiple authors who have used and written on the case method (Christensen & Carlisle, 2009; Eisenhardt, 1989; Mintzberg, 1989). I used their work as guidance.

Regrettably, I must reiterate my recommendation to decline this manuscript for publication in the journal.

Thank you for your valuable comments.

References

Nosek, B.A., Ebersole, C.R., DeHaven, A.C., and Mellor, D.T. 2018. The Preregistration Revolution. PNAS, 115 (11), 2600-2606.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf