Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors should define the research gap more explicitly, clarifying how the proposed integrated framework differs from existing ones and what theoretical contribution it makes. They should then clarify how the 51 were selected for the target population of 186. A summary table showing response frequencies and percentages would improve clarity and should further emphasize the difference between existing and needed competencies, along with the implications of multiple-choice questions. The authors should explain how the four competency areas were developed and distinguish model development from empirical validation, which has not yet been conducted. It is necessary for the authors to more clearly explain the difference between empirical findings, their interpretation and proposed organizational improvements, and the recommendations should be more directly consistent with the supporting evidence. The authors should better reflect the research, individual case, in the conclusion. The effectiveness of the proposed framework remains untested and requires further empirical validation. The recommendation regarding Figure 1 is that it should be simplified to improve readability and visual clarity. The recommendation is to identify priority implementation steps and relevant performance indicators.

Author Response

 "Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the manuscript is in excellent shape, the following minor points could further refine and elevate the final published version:

• Limitations: consider briefly elaborating on how future research could quantitatively validate the ON Competency Model and the integrated framework across a broader sample of tech SMEs using longitudinal data or structural equation modeling.
• The authors rightly caution against premature headcount sizing without baseline process metrics. To make this point even more impactful in the managerial implications section, consider adding 2–3 specific key performance indicators that firms should measure prior to reallocating workforce capacity.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript demonstrates substantial improvements in its theoretical and methodological presentation. The authors have made a clear effort to strengthen the research framework, clarify the methodological procedures, and address the limitations of the study.

The inclusion of supplementary materials, particularly the survey instrument, sample characteristics, triangulation matrix, and competency model, contributes to greater transparency and strengthens the overall quality of the manuscript.

The research objectives and contributions are now more clearly articulated, while the discussion provides a more balanced interpretation of the findings. It is particularly encouraging that the authors explicitly acknowledge the exploratory nature of the research and the need for further empirical validation of the proposed framework.

Although the study remains limited to a single organizational context, these limitations are appropriately recognized and discussed.

Overall, I consider the revised manuscript to be significantly improved and suitable for publication. I have no further substantial comments.

Best regards.