Leveraging Centralized Procurement for Digital Innovation in Higher Education: Institutional Capacity and Policy Gaps in Romania

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors: It is a well-structured and policy-relevant document that investigates the strategic roles of centralized procurement for the Romanian higher education market, particularly for ONAC. It is a timely topic that contributes immensely to the public procurement, digital transformation, and transitional institutional governance corpus.

However, for better clarity, strength, and overall draft effectiveness, I would suggest the following refinements:

Introduction and Framing: It is a good summary of the topic and the relevant literature. However, the argument is not synthesized well enough, with a more specific articulation of the gap for research. Some of the paragraphs are overly descriptive and can be minimized. 

The introduction provides strong contextual justification and outlines the research problem clearly. Still, it could benefit from a more concise articulation of the research gap. The problem statement spans multiple paragraphs and may overwhelm the reader. The authors list three research questions but do not explicitly revisit them in the conclusion. Consider signaling more clearly how each question is answered throughout the manuscript. 

The literature review is comprehensive, with appropriate references to both EU regulations and comparative international experiences. Nevertheless, the conceptual framework (Figure 1) could be more tightly integrated into the empirical findings. While it is discussed in the methods and findings, the connections between its three pillars (institutional capacity, digitalization, sustainability) and the findings could be more explicitly drawn out in the Discussion section.

Methodology: It would be appropriate to utilize a qualitative case study from secondary sources, but the methodology section might be more transparent. The coding procedure should be explained more clearly. It should also be indicated if inter-coder reliability or triangulation was carried out. Additionally, possible bias and limitations of reliance solely on secondary data should be specified. Since the case design is good, a lack of primary data (e.g., interviews, questionnaires) limits empirical nuance. The authors should clariy how they ensured reliability and rigor in the content analysis of the secondary data. Was a coding scheme used? Were data triangulated?

Results and Analysis: Results are well organized overall, but some of the findings are redundant or vague between the results section and the discussion. Figures such as Figure 3 and 4 can be graphically enhanced for more effective representation of institutional procurements and flows. Table 4 is a useful one; however, it can be further reinforced through the connection of certain barriers to the proposed solutions or best practices from other countries.

Discussion and Policy Relevance: Comparative analysis is provided via the discussion section, specifically grounding the comparison on Italy, the Netherlands, and Norway. It is important to more distinctly insulate differential analysis from the derivation of findings from normative prescriptions, as some of the results read prescriptive without being explicitly grounded on empirical outcomes. The integration of the conceptual framework (Figure 1) with learnings from the case should also be strengthened.  Some recommendations (e.g., modular procurement, participatory design) may benefit from mre practical examples or references to pilot programs where these have been impleemented successfully.

Language and Presentation: Overall, the English is good but some of the sentences are long or complicated. A language polish edit would be useful to aid readability. Excessive use of passive voice and professional terminology should be avoided where not necessary.

Figures and Tables: Each figure should be fully self-explanatory, including legends and acronyms. Figures 1 and 4 could be upgradeed visually to more effectively complement the storyline.

Limitations and Future Research: Due reference to the limitations is given in the conclusion. However, the paper could be more specific about pondering the potential effects of these limitations on the results. Future proposals for studies are plausible but might be better linked to the needs enumerated above from the review of literature.

Final Comment: This article presents valuable insights of high potential for informing scholarship and policy communities. With improvement of methodological precision, writing, and figure creation, it could be a handy tool for strategic public procurements and educational digital innovation studies.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the English is good but some of the sentences are long or complicated. A language polish edit would be useful to aid readability. Excessive use of passive voice and professional terminology should be avoided where not necessary.

Author Response

Manuscript Journal of Administrative Science - admsci-3785138

 

Ms. Wency Wang

Editor J. Administrative Science Editorial Office

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript entitled Leveraging Centralized Procurement for Digital Innovation in Higher Education: Institutional Capacity and Policy Gaps in Romania.

We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments on our manuscript. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript.

Here is the point-to-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns.

 

Comments from Reviewer 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors: It is a well-structured and policy-relevant document that investigates the strategic roles of centralized procurement for the Romanian higher education market, particularly for ONAC. It is a timely topic that contributes immensely to the public procurement, digital transformation, and transitional institutional governance corpus.

However, for better clarity, strength, and overall draft effectiveness, I would suggest the following refinements:

Comments 1. Introduction and Framing: It is a good summary of the topic and the relevant literature. However, the argument is not synthesized well enough, with a more specific articulation of the gap for research. Some of the paragraphs are overly descriptive and can be minimized. 

The introduction provides strong contextual justification and outlines the research problem clearly. Still, it could benefit from a more concise articulation of the research gap. The problem statement spans multiple paragraphs and may overwhelm the reader. The authors list three research questions but do not explicitly revisit them in the conclusion. Consider signaling more clearly how each question is answered throughout the manuscript. 

The literature review is comprehensive, with appropriate references to both EU regulations and comparative international experiences. Nevertheless, the conceptual framework (Figure 1) could be more tightly integrated into the empirical findings. While it is discussed in the methods and findings, the connections between its three pillars (institutional capacity, digitalization, sustainability) and the findings could be more explicitly drawn out in the Discussion section.

Response: Thank you for this constructive feedback. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript to address these points:

Condensed the Introduction by removing overly descriptive or repetitive content and moving background details to the Theoretical Background section.

Articulated the research gap more clearly in the final paragraph of the Introduction, emphasizing the lack of empirical studies on how centralized procurement in transition economies integrates digitalization and sustainability in the higher education sector.

Explicitly stated the three research questions at the end of the Introduction and clarified that the manuscript structure follows them.

Revised the Conclusions to include a new subsection (6.1. Answers to the Research Questions), which explicitly responds to RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3.

Comments 2: Methodology: It would be appropriate to utilize a qualitative case study from secondary sources, but the methodology section might be more transparent. The coding procedure should be explained more clearly. It should also be indicated if inter-coder reliability or triangulation was carried out. Additionally, possible bias and limitations of reliance solely on secondary data should be specified. Since the case design is good, a lack of primary data (e.g., interviews, questionnaires) limits empirical nuance. The authors should clariy how they ensured reliability and rigor in the content analysis of the secondary data. Was a coding scheme used? Were data triangulated?

Response: Thank you for highlighting the need for greater methodological transparency. We have revised the Methodology section as follows:

Clarified the coding procedure: We now describe the thematic coding process, including the deductive and inductive steps, and explicitly state the coding categories derived from the conceptual framework (institutional capacity, digitalization, and sustainability).

Explained data triangulation: We indicate that secondary data from multiple sources (legal documents, policy reports, ONAC publications, and EU evaluations) were cross-verified to ensure accuracy and reduce source bias.

Acknowledged the limitation of relying solely on secondary data: We have added a paragraph in the Methodology and in the Limitations section emphasizing the lack of primary interviews or surveys and the potential impact on empirical nuance.

Ensured rigor and reliability: While no inter-coder reliability test was conducted due to single-author coding, we adopted a systematic coding protocol and applied triangulation across at least three types of secondary sources to enhance credibility.

Comments 3: Results and Analysis: Results are well organized overall, but some of the findings are redundant or vague between the results section and the discussion. Figures such as Figure 3 and 4 can be graphically enhanced for more effective representation of institutional procurements and flows. Table 4 is a useful one; however, it can be further reinforced through the connection of certain barriers to the proposed solutions or best practices from other countries.

Response: Thank you for your constructive observations regarding the Results and Analysis section. We have implemented the following improvements:

Reduced redundancy between the Results and Discussion sections by consolidating overlapping findings. Now, the Results focus strictly on descriptive evidence, while interpretation and comparison are placed in the Discussion.

Enhanced Figures 3 and 4 to improve visual clarity and the graphical representation of institutional procurement flows, including clearer labeling and streamlined arrows.

Reinforced Table 4 by adding a new column that connects key institutional barriers to potential solutions and best practices drawn from international examples (e.g., Consip in Italy, PIANOo in the Netherlands, and Norway’s PPoI model).

Comments 4: Discussion and Policy Relevance: Comparative analysis is provided via the discussion section, specifically grounding the comparison on Italy, the Netherlands, and Norway. It is important to more distinctly insulate differential analysis from the derivation of findings from normative prescriptions, as some of the results read prescriptive without being explicitly grounded on empirical outcomes. The integration of the conceptual framework (Figure 1) with learnings from the case should also be strengthened.  Some recommendations (e.g., modular procurement, participatory design) may benefit from more practical examples or references to pilot programs where these have been implemented successfully.

Response: Thank you for highlighting the need to clarify the distinction between empirical findings and normative recommendations, and to strengthen the integration of the conceptual framework. In the revised manuscript, we have:

1. Separated analytical interpretation from prescriptive recommendations in the Discussion. The empirical analysis now focuses exclusively on what was observed in the case study and how it aligns with or diverges from the literature, while policy implications are explicitly moved to Section 6.
2. Strengthened integration of the conceptual framework (Figure 1) by explicitly linking findings to the three pillars: institutional capacity, digitalization, and sustainability. Each is now referenced in the Discussion to demonstrate how the case of ONAC confirms or challenges the conceptual model.
3. Enhanced practical relevance of recommendations by providing concrete international examples and pilot programs:

- Modular and hybrid contracts (Italy – Consip) to improve flexibility.

- Participatory design and feedback loops (Netherlands – PIANOo) to enhance responsiveness and institutional learning.

- Innovation-driven procurement pilots (Norway – PPoI) to embed sustainability and experimentation.

Comments 5. Language and Presentation: Overall, the English is good but some of the sentences are long or complicated. A language polish edit would be useful to aid readability. Excessive use of passive voice and professional terminology should be avoided where not necessary.

Response: Thank you for this observation. During the comprehensive revision of the manuscript to address the previous reviewer comments, we also:

Reformulated and simplified sentences throughout the manuscript to improve readability.

Reduced the use of passive voice and replaced it with active constructions where appropriate.

Minimized overly technical or professional terminology where simpler phrasing could convey the same meaning.

Comments 6: Figures and Tables: Each figure should be fully self-explanatory, including legends and acronyms. Figures 1 and 4 could be upgradeed visually to more effectively complement the storyline.

Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. In the revised manuscript:

Table 4 has been significantly enhanced to include proposed solutions and best practices, improving its clarity and practical value.

Figure legends and acronyms have been reviewed and clarified to ensure that each figure is self-explanatory.

Minor visual adjustments have been applied to Figures 3 and 4 to improve readability, while maintaining the original structure of the manuscript.

Comments 7: Limitations and Future Research: Due reference to the limitations is given in the conclusion. However, the paper could be more specific about pondering the potential effects of these limitations on the results. Future proposals for studies are plausible but might be better linked to the needs enumerated above from the review of literature.

Response: Thank you for this constructive suggestion. In the revised manuscript:

The Limitations section (6.3) has been expanded to explicitly discuss the potential effects of relying on secondary data on the study’s findings, including the possibility of limited empirical nuance and reduced capacity to capture informal or tacit institutional practices.

We now explicitly link the limitations to the interpretation of results, clarifying that while the findings are robust for procedural and institutional analysis, they may not fully capture the dynamic perceptions of stakeholders without primary interviews.

The Future Research directions have been revised to connect to the gaps identified in the literature, highlighting the need for:

• Primary data collection (e.g., interviews, surveys) to enrich institutional analysis;
• Comparative case studies in other transition economies to test the transferability of ONAC’s model;
• Empirical assessment of digitalization and sustainability interventions to evaluate long-term impacts.

 

Final Comment: This article presents valuable insights of high potential for informing scholarship and policy communities. With improvement of methodological precision, writing, and figure creation, it could be a handy tool for strategic public procurements and educational digital innovation studies.

Response: Thank you for your detailed feedback and valuable suggestions, which we have carefully considered and incorporated into the revised manuscript.

We have reviewed and refined the text to improve clarity, flow, and grammatical accuracy.

Methodological precision has been enhanced through clearer explanation of the coding process, triangulation of secondary sources, and explicit discussion of limitations.

Figures and tables have been updated for improved readability and alignment with the storyline.

We sincerely thank the Reviewer for the thoughtful and constructive feedback provided. Your insights have been extremely helpful in refining the study and enhancing its clarity, rigor, and scientific contribution. We greatly appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work.

All changes related to this comment are clearly highlighted in the revised manuscript, with new or modified text in red and deleted text shown with strikethrough, to ensure full transparency for the reviewers.

 

 

Sincerely,

Authors,

31.07.2025

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a notable gap by examining centralized procurement in technical universities, an area often overlooked in public procurement literature. However, the paper lacks a clearly articulated theoretical contribution. The authors are encouraged to more explicitly differentiate the manuscript’s conceptual insights, such as the notion of public value-oriented procurement governance from its empirical findings. The claim to novelty would be significantly strengthened by positioning the proposed framework in relation to existing models of strategic procurement, particularly those applied in education or digital transformation contexts.

In the introduction, the articulation of the problem is underdeveloped. What specific shortcomings exist in Romania’s centralized procurement system, and how do these challenges logically lead to the study’s research questions? The current version lacks a clear narrative bridge, and the logic of inquiry feels abrupt.

Another concern is the exclusive reliance on secondary data. While this is pragmatically understandable, it limits the ability to capture critical organizational dynamics, including informal coordination mechanisms, stakeholder perceptions, and institutional culture.

Furthermore, although the study claims to focus on “technical universities,” it does not provide a systematic comparison with other types of public universities in Romania to justify why these institutions warrant special analytical attention in terms of procurement needs and behaviors.

 

Author Response

Manuscript Journal of Administrative Science - admsci-3785138

 

Ms. Wency Wang

Editor J. Administrative Science Editorial Office

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript entitled Leveraging Centralized Procurement for Digital Innovation in Higher Education: Institutional Capacity and Policy Gaps in Romania.

We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments on our manuscript. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript.

Here is the point-to-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns.

 

Comments from Reviewer 2

Comments 1. The manuscript addresses a notable gap by examining centralized procurement in technical universities, an area often overlooked in public procurement literature. However, the paper lacks a clearly articulated theoretical contribution. The authors are encouraged to more explicitly differentiate the manuscript’s conceptual insights, such as the notion of public value-oriented procurement governance from its empirical findings. The claim to novelty would be significantly strengthened by positioning the proposed framework in relation to existing models of strategic procurement, particularly those applied in education or digital transformation contexts.

Response: Thank you for highlighting the importance of clarifying the theoretical contribution and novelty of our manuscript. In the revised version, we have addressed this in several ways:

Explicit differentiation between conceptual insights and empirical findings:

The Introduction now clearly articulates the conceptual focus on public value-oriented procurement governance, emphasizing the three pillars of the *conceptual framework (Figure 1): institutional capacity, digitalization, and sustainability.

The Discussion section explicitly interprets findings in light of this framework, while policy recommendations are presented separately in Section 6 to avoid conflating empirical evidence with normative prescriptions.

Strengthened positioning of the conceptual framework in the literature:

We now compare our approach to existing strategic procurement models, including those emphasizing digital transformation, modular contracting, and participatory design in the education sector (citing Rolfstam, 2015; Petersen et al., 2022; Geropoulos et al., 2024).

This highlights how our framework bridges classical compliance-focused procurement with public value-oriented and innovation-driven governance, addressing a gap for transition economies and higher education institutions.

Enhanced claim to novelty: We emphasize that this study is among the first to empirically examine centralized procurement for technical universities in a transition economy, linking it explicitly to strategic and digital procurement literature.

By integrating lessons from ONAC’s practice with the conceptual framework, we provide theoretical insights into how centralized procurement can evolve into a public value-oriented governance mechanism.

Comments 2: In the introduction, the articulation of the problem is underdeveloped. What specific shortcomings exist in Romania’s centralized procurement system, and how do these challenges logically lead to the study’s research questions? The current version lacks a clear narrative bridge, and the logic of inquiry feels abrupt.

Response: Thank you for this insightful observation. In the revised manuscript, we have substantially restructured the Introduction to provide a clearer problem articulation and logical progression toward the research questions:

Clear articulation of Romania’s centralized procurement shortcomings:

The revised Introduction now highlights three major challenges in Romania’s system: Over-centralization and limited institutional adaptability, Partial digitalization and interoperability gaps, Weak integration of sustainability and innovation criteria.

These shortcomings are explicitly connected to EU policy objectives and to the public value-oriented procurement framework presented in Figure 1.

Improved narrative bridge to the research questions: We now close the Introduction with a dedicated paragraph that connects these shortcomings to the study’s three research questions, clarifying how each RQ addresses a specific gap in the system.

For example:

RQ1 addresses ONAC’s institutional strengths and weaknesses (capacity gap),

RQ2 examines the partial digitalization and interoperability challenges,

RQ3 explores the underdeveloped sustainability integration.

Enhanced logical flow of inquiry: The problem statement is now concise and cohesive, leading directly to the study’s purpose and objectives, and providing a clear bridge from contextual problem → research gap → research questions.

 

This also ensures that the logic of inquiry is explicit and easy to follow for the reader.

Comments 3: Another concern is the exclusive reliance on secondary data. While this is pragmatically understandable, it limits the ability to capture critical organizational dynamics, including informal coordination mechanisms, stakeholder perceptions, and institutional culture.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this important point. We agree that relying solely on secondary data imposes inherent limitations on the depth of organizational analysis. In the revised manuscript, we have: Explicitly acknowledged this limitation in Section 6.3 (Limitations and Future Research):

We now clarify that the absence of primary data (e.g., interviews or surveys) limits the study’s ability to capture informal coordination mechanisms, stakeholder perceptions, and elements of institutional culture.

We also explain how this limitation may affect the interpretation of results, noting that the findings are robust for procedural and institutional mapping but cannot fully capture tacit or dynamic aspects of governance.

Strengthened the discussion of methodological rigor in Section 3 (Methodology): We explain that systematic triangulation across legal documents, policy reports, and ONAC publications was used to enhance reliability and mitigate the absence of primary sources.

A structured coding protocol was implemented to ensure consistency in the content analysis.

Linked this limitation to future research directions: We now recommend follow-up studies using primary data to capture organizational culture, informal coordination, and stakeholder perspectives, which would complement and deepen the insights from our secondary-data analysis.

Comments 4: Furthermore, although the study claims to focus on “technical universities,” it does not provide a systematic comparison with other types of public universities in Romania to justify why these institutions warrant special analytical attention in terms of procurement needs and behaviors.

Response: Thank you for this observation. We have revised the Introduction and Case Description (Section 4.2) to clarify the rationale for focusing on technical universities:

Explicit justification for the case selection: Technical universities were chosen because they are primary recipients of digital infrastructure investments under Romania’s National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP).

They exhibit high procurement complexity, as they require advanced IT equipment, hybrid learning platforms, and research infrastructure not typically procured by non-technical universities.

This makes them an ideal setting to examine the interaction between centralized procurement, digitalization, and sustainability objectives.

Clarified the analytical focus rather than a broad comparison: The study does not aim to provide a systematic comparison with all public universities.

Instead, technical universities serve as a strategic and illustrative case for analyzing how centralized procurement operates under highly specialized and technology-intensive requirements.

Linked the case to the study’s novelty and contribution: Focusing on technical universities fills a gap in the literature, as procurement in STEM-focused higher education is underexplored despite its critical role in digital transformation and innovation policy.

This narrow focus strengthens the manuscript’s empirical and conceptual clarity, as also recommended in comparative case study methodology.

Final Comment to Reviewer 2. We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. Your comments have been instrumental in improving the clarity, methodological rigor, and theoretical contribution of our manuscript.

In the revised version, we have:

• Clarified the theoretical contribution by differentiating conceptual insights from empirical findings and explicitly positioning our framework within the literature on strategic and digital procurement.
• Improved the problem articulation and logical flow in the Introduction, directly linking Romania’s centralized procurement challenges to the research questions.
• Enhanced methodological transparency and rigor, including explicit acknowledgment of the limitations of relying on secondary data and recommendations for future research using primary sources.
• Justified the focus on technical universities, highlighting their strategic relevance for digital transformation and centralized procurement studies.
• Refined the discussion and policy implications, clearly separating analytical interpretation from normative recommendations and integrating international best practices.

We believe that these changes substantially strengthen the manuscript’s contribution to both public procurement scholarship and policy practice, particularly in the context of educational digital transformation in transition economies.

All changes related to this comment are clearly highlighted in the revised manuscript, with new or modified text in red and deleted text shown with strikethrough, to ensure full transparency for the reviewers.

We are grateful for the time and expertise you have dedicated to reviewing our work, which has greatly improved its quality and scientific impact.

 

Sincerely,

Authors,

31.07.2025

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form