Systemic Approaches to Coopetition: Technology and Service Integration in Dynamic Ecosystems Among SMEs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

congratulations on the paper, the topic is insightful and the methodology is original.

We make the following suggestions to enhance the quality of the article, in particular improve the logical flow and clarify the practical implications for your case study. 

• row 26. suggest to add innovation to the keywords
• row 38. alongside Corbo, recommend the extensive review of coopetition in the financial technology sector, describing how incumbents sometimes compete and sometimes join forces with traditional players. coopetition arises when firms have a clear view of what activities they are good at and what their focus and mission is. once this is defined, corporations can take the strategic decision to cooperate with outside companies that complement their strengths. the research also suggests that coopetition is not an equilibrium state, as newcomers develop new capabilities over time. in De Mariz, F. (2022). Finance with a Purpose: FinTech, Development and Financial Inclusion in the Global Economy. https://doi.org/10.1142/q0359 Barge-Gil, Andres (2010) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.11.004
• row 78, justify why this sector is of “national significance with global reach”, what it its size, number of employees, or any figure that you can share to support your choice, indicate some of the data you have later in the paper (row 506)
• in the introduction, i would recommend to touch on a few additional questions. who benefits the most from the value co-creation, the tech company or the stone company, any stone company in particular or all of them equally? is it a stable equilibrium, or the tech company/ newcomer can then substitute the incumbents? if not, why not - does it confirm the model framework of competitive advantages? you want to distinguish what is simply outsourcing / IT procurement (such as SAP, inventory management) and what is actual coopetition. you may want to illustrate what you mean by coopetition in this specific case study of the stone sector. 
• row 135 / row 153. good references and table
• row 158. good background. this is the basis for the all the “as a service” segments that have given rise to successful companies
• row 183-186 and section 2.2. beware of repetitions. it feels like you are making the same a few times and cite the same sources several times 
• row 262. section 4 reads like a review of the literature, and had several repetitions with section 2. consider if some of the paragraphs should not be merged or streamlined
• row 467. review the chart for simplicity and clarity. figures can easily be quoted and reproduced, it is worth working on it until you feel the figure has a clear message and insight
• section 6.2 should be merged with section 3, which presents the methodology. you also want to explain what data was retrieved from the 6 participants. those 6 participants represent what percentage of the sector / do you have reason to believe they represent a good sample? what questions were asked?
• row 579. are the responses coming from the same customers. if so, can you have pairs (customer X at T0 and same customer X at T60). if not, worth mentioning
• row 581-583. please detail what the cooperation looks like, this is key to your argument. what did companies share during this phase? you want to illustrate in details what part of the activity was shared (cooperation) and what part of the activity was still subject to competition. 
•  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are delighted that you found the topic insightful and the methodology original. Your suggestions were extremely helpful in improving the logical flow, clarifying practical implications, and enhancing the overall quality of our paper. Below, we provide detailed responses to each of your comments:

Specific Comments

1. Row 26: Suggest to add "innovation" to the keywords.
   Response: We have added "innovation" to the keywords as per your suggestion.
2. Row 38: Recommend incorporating insights from the review of coopetition in the financial technology sector (De Mariz, 2022; Barge-Gil, 2010).
   Response: We have integrated the suggested references and discussion into the manuscript. We emphasized how coopetition arises when firms focus on their core strengths and strategically collaborate to complement these strengths, while also noting that coopetition is not an equilibrium state due to the evolving capabilities of participants. This addition provides a broader context and reinforces the theoretical foundation of the study.
3. Row 78: Justify why the sector is of "national significance with global reach" by sharing figures, such as its size, number of employees, etc., from row 506.
   Response: In the introduction, we added relevant figures from later sections of the manuscript to support the sector’s national and global significance. We highlighted the sector's export performance, turnover, and employment figures, demonstrating its economic and cultural importance.
4. Introduction: Address additional questions regarding value co-creation beneficiaries, stability of the equilibrium, and distinctions between coopetition and outsourcing. Illustrate coopetition for the stone sector.
   Response: We revised the introduction to address these points. We clarified that value co-creation benefits both the tech companies and stone companies, but the latter are the primary beneficiaries. We also explained why coopetition in this case does not lead to one party substituting the other, aligning this with the competitive advantage model. Additionally, we illustrated the nature of coopetition in the stone sector, distinguishing it from typical IT outsourcing, and clarified its role in our case study.
5. Row 183-186 and Section 2.2: Beware of repetitions, as some points and citations are repeated.
   Response: We removed redundant sentences and citations in this section to improve conciseness and avoid repetition. The revised text now reads more succinctly without compromising content clarity.
6. Row 262: Section 4 reads like a review of the literature and overlaps with Section 2. Consider merging or streamlining paragraphs.
   Response: We reviewed and streamlined these sections by merging overlapping paragraphs. The revised structure eliminates redundancies and ensures a smoother logical flow between the literature review and subsequent sections.
7. Row 467: Refine the chart for simplicity and clarity. Figures should have a clear message and insight.
   Response: The chart has been refined to improve its simplicity and clarity. We ensured that it conveys a clear message aligned with the text and provides valuable insights to the reader.
8. Section 6.2: Merge with Section 3, which presents the methodology.
   Response: As suggested, we merged Section 6.2 with Section 3 to consolidate the methodology discussion. This integration enhances the logical flow and reduces fragmentation.
9. Explain what data was retrieved from the 6 participants, their percentage representation of the sector, and whether they are a good sample.
   Response: We added a detailed explanation of the data collected from the 6 participants, their percentage representation in the sector, and the rationale behind selecting these firms. This section now clarifies the representativeness of the sample and its alignment with the study objectives.
10. Row 579: Are the responses from the same customers? If so, consider pairing customer feedback over time. If not, clarify this point.
    Response: We clarified that the customer feedback was collected anonymously and, therefore, could not be paired across time intervals. This limitation has been explicitly stated in the manuscript.
11. Row 581-583: Detail what cooperation looks like, including what companies shared during this phase and what activities remained competitive.
    Response: We added a detailed description of the cooperative activities during the experimental phase, specifying the resources, data, and processes shared among companies. We also clarified which activities remained competitive, illustrating the boundaries between cooperation and competition.

 

Final Revisions

• Practical Implications and Logical Flow: In response to your overarching comments, we revised the manuscript to improve its logical flow and practical relevance. This included streamlining overlapping sections, enhancing the introduction, and illustrating the specific dynamics of coopetition in the case study.
• Text Refinement: The entire manuscript was carefully revised to ensure clarity, conciseness, and consistency.

 

Thank you once again for your constructive feedback, which has significantly enhanced the quality of our paper. We hope that the revisions satisfactorily address your comments and look forward to your further feedback.

Sincerely,
The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The paper presents an interesting phenomenon/mechanism of coopetition - the creation of an integrative network consisting of, among others, manufacturers and customers of stone ornaments.

2. However, the paper has a profile strongly focused on the presentation of the theoretical assumptions of coopetition. 480 lines out of 690 lines of the entire paper are devoted to presenting a review of literature on the idea and assumptions of coopetition.

3. It should be emphasized that the review of literature and the presentation of the idea of coopetition are presented in an interesting way.

4. However, there is almost no short description of the ornamental stone sector. The fact that only 6 companies agreed to provide information on cooperation in the network does not release the authors from presenting the sector, or perhaps the collective description of these companies (while maintaining all means of maintaining trade secrets).

5. Before the authors undertake the analysis covering many sectors and many regions in the next stage, I suggest:

a. Presentation of the local ornamental stone market in which the analyzed companies operate,

b. General presentation of the companies, taking care to prevent recognition of these companies (in accordance with the conditions set by the companies),

 

c. More specifically present the advantages of this form of operation of companies in this sector, Present both the advantages and disadvantages and the risks resulting from such action (a signal of such risks is even the many refusals of companies to cooperate with the authors due to concerns about the potential disclosure of trade secrets)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We are delighted that you found the topic interesting and the literature review engaging. Your comments provided valuable insights that have allowed us to improve the paper, both in terms of practical relevance and sector-specific focus. Below, we detail how we have addressed each of your points.

 

General Comments

1. Comment: The paper presents an interesting phenomenon/mechanism of coopetition - the creation of an integrative network consisting of, among others, manufacturers and customers of stone ornaments.
   Response: Thank you for your kind words. We are pleased that you found the paper's focus on coopetition mechanisms compelling.
2. Comment: The paper has a profile strongly focused on the presentation of the theoretical assumptions of coopetition. 480 lines out of 690 lines are devoted to presenting a review of literature on the idea and assumptions of coopetition.
   Response: We recognize the emphasis placed on the theoretical discussion. To address this, we have streamlined and condensed the literature review, integrating it more closely with the empirical context. This allowed us to allocate more space to discussing the ornamental stone sector and the practical implications of the coopetition network.
3. Comment: The review of literature and the presentation of the idea of coopetition are presented in an interesting way.
   Response: Thank you for your positive feedback. We are glad that the literature review added value to the paper.

 

Specific Comments

4. Comment: There is almost no short description of the ornamental stone sector. The fact that only six companies agreed to provide information on cooperation in the network does not release the authors from presenting the sector, or perhaps the collective description of these companies (while maintaining all means of maintaining trade secrets).
   Response: We agree with your observation and have added a detailed description of the ornamental stone sector in the revised manuscript. This includes its historical and economic significance, export performance, turnover, and employment statistics. Additionally, we have provided a collective description of the six participating companies, highlighting their technological capabilities and relevance to the study, while ensuring compliance with confidentiality agreements.
5. Comment: Before the authors undertake the analysis covering many sectors and regions in the next stage, I suggest:
   • (a) Presentation of the local ornamental stone market in which the analyzed companies operate.
     Response: We have included a section presenting the local ornamental stone market, describing its unique characteristics, such as its export reach, production processes, and the role of SMEs within the sector. This provides essential context for understanding the dynamics of the coopetition network.
   • (b) General presentation of the companies, taking care to prevent recognition of these companies (in accordance with the conditions set by the companies).
     Response: A general profile of the six participating companies has been added, focusing on their technological capabilities, scale of operations, and contributions to the coopetition network. We have ensured that all identifying details remain confidential to respect the agreements with these companies.
   • (c) More specifically present the advantages of this form of operation of companies in this sector, presenting both the advantages and disadvantages as well as the risks resulting from such action (e.g., concerns about the disclosure of trade secrets).
     Response: We have expanded the discussion to detail the advantages of coopetition in the ornamental stone sector, including improved resource sharing, task distribution, and customer-perceived quality. We also addressed the disadvantages and risks, such as concerns about confidentiality and reluctance from other firms to participate in the study. By presenting a balanced perspective, we aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of the implications of coopetition networks in this context.

 

Final Revisions

We have carefully revised the manuscript to incorporate your comments. Specifically, we condensed the literature review, added detailed descriptions of the ornamental stone sector and the participating companies, and expanded on the practical implications of the coopetition network. These changes ensure a better balance between theoretical and practical aspects and align the paper more closely with your suggestions.

 

Thank you once again for your insightful feedback, which has significantly enhanced the quality and focus of our paper. We hope that the revised manuscript meets your expectations, and we look forward to any further suggestions you might have.

Sincerely,
The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations on this new version. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have taken all my comments into account positively.

I am glad that these comments have made the article more interesting for many types of readers.