Configurational Analysis of Inbound and Outbound Innovation Impact on Competitive Advantage in the SMEs of the Portuguese Hospitality Sector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I thank the authors for the opportunity to get acquainted with your research.

 The value of the article lies in demonstrating the practical application of a quantitative approach based on Qualitative Comparative Fuzzy Set Analysis (fsQCA) in determining the competitive advantages of hotels from Portuguese SMEs. The authors demonstrated the role of the relationship between organizational strategy and corporate risk management with competitive advantage in the open innovation model.

 • Is the manuscript clear, relevant to the field, and presented in a well-structured way?

The authors consider the topical issue of identifying the factors of formation of competitive advantages for small and medium-sized firms in the hospitality sector. The presented manuscript is well-structured and follows the accepted structure for articles in the journal.

• Are the references cited mostly recent (within the last 5 years) and up-to-date? Does it include excessive self-citations?

All sources used are relevant and applicable to the manuscript.

• Is the manuscript scientifically sound and is the experimental design suitable for testing the hypothesis?

The methods and tools used by the authors are scientifically substantiated. The sampling process is described in detail, the questions of the questionnaire are presented in the Appendix. In addition, the authors clearly described the limitations of the study.

• Are the results of the manuscript reproducible based on the details provided in the Methods section?

The results of the manuscript correspond to the theoretical approaches and tools of the section "Materials and Methods".

• Are the figures/tables/images/diagrams appropriate? Are they displaying the data correctly? Are they easy to interpret and understand? Is the data interpreted correctly and consistently throughout the manuscript?

All figures and tables in the manuscript are informative and help to understand the reasoning and conclusions of the authors.

• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?

The conclusions of the manuscript are fully consistent with the evidence and arguments. In addition, the findings address in detail the limitations of the author's research and (most importantly) directions for future academic research in this area, as well as practical recommendations for top managers and government officials for the development of SMEs in the hospitality sector.

While appreciating your research, I would like to encourage you to present the findings of the research in the form of a drawing or infographic (if possible) that graphically shows the presence/absence of relationships between the factors under consideration. Such a presentation of the research results will make your research more accessible to readers who do not own / are not familiar with the fsQCA methods, and will undoubtedly increase the value of the research results for the practical activities of managers and entrepreneurs.

Author Response

Thanks a lot for your kind comments.

Question: While appreciating your research, I would like to encourage you to present the findings of the research in the form of a drawing or infographic (if possible) that graphically shows the presence/absence of relationships between the factors under consideration. Such a presentation of the research results will make your research more accessible to readers who do not own / are not familiar with the fsQCA methods, and will undoubtedly increase the value of the research results for the practical activities of managers and entrepreneurs.

Response: We have added figure 1 in the paper showing the research procedure.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is a reasonable effort, It provides valuable insights into the concepts of configurational analysis, inbound and outbound innovation, and the competitive advantage of SMEs. However, the author/s needs to make some amendments.

-> The practical research GAP is well explained, however, the theoretical gap is not well explained scientifically. Therefore, the authors are advised to revise and modify the introduction section with proper justification and arguments from the literature. In this regard, the authors are recommended to add theoretical gaps and contributions from the previous studies. For instance; how the current study is different than the following studies in terms of theoretical and methodological contribution?

1. Musiello-Neto, F., Rua, O. L., Arias-Oliva, M., & Silva, A. F. (2021). Open Innovation and Competitive Advantage on the Hospitality Sector: The Role of Organizational Strategy. Sustainability, 13(24), 13650.

2. Liao, S., Liu, Z., & Ma, C. (2019). Direct and configurational paths of open innovation and organisational agility to business model innovation in SMEs. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 31(10), 1213-1228.

3. Almeida, F. (2021). Open-innovation practices: Diversity in Portuguese SMEs. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(3), 169.

4. Ibarra, D., Bigdeli, A. Z., Igartua, J. I., & Ganzarain, J. (2020). Business model innovation in established SMEs: A configurational approach. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(3), 76.

5. Radicic, D., Pugh, G., & Trent, U. K. (2014). The Impact of Inbound and Outbound Open Innovations: Empirical Evidence for SMEs across Europe. ECIE 2014 University of Ulster and School of Social Enterprises Ireland Belfast, UK 18-19 September 2014, 368.

-> It is recommended to use full terms, especially in the introduction, hypotheses, and discussion part rather than using abbreviations to increase the academic significance of the manuscript. For instance; OI, CA, IOI, OOI and fsQCA.

-> Hypotheses development is weak. There is a need for extensive readings while developing the hypotheses. It is recommended each hypothesis must be discussed separately. Also please check the numbering of the hypotheses. 

-> Similarly the hypothesis building needs theoretical backing (theory or any developed research model).

-> Do read and cite the following studies in your manuscript:

1. ANUNTARUMPORN, N., & SORHSARUHT, P. (2022). The Impact of Innovation Capability of Firms on Competitive Advantage: An Empirical Study of the ICT Industry in Thailand. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 9(2), 121-131.

2. Sun, Y., Xu, X., Yu, H., & Wang, H. (2022). Impact of value co‐creation in the artificial intelligence innovation ecosystem on competitive advantage and innovation intelligibility. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 39(3), 474-488.

3. Mehmood, K. K., & Hanaysha, J. R. (2022). Impact of corporate social responsibility, green intellectual capital, and green innovation on competitive advantage: building contingency model. International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals (IJHCITP), 13(1), 1-14.

4. Fareed, M., Noor, W. S., Isa, M. F., & Salleh, S. S. (2016). Developing Human Capital for Sustainable Competitive Advantage: The Roles of Organizational Culture and High Performance Work System. International Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(4).

-> I strongly suggest including the research model/framework (diagram) in the study for a better understanding of the research.

-> Present and document the quality of the methodology in a better way. To ensure the quality of the overall research process, the study must have rigor.

-> Discussion is very weak. Needless to say, when it comes to discussing findings and contributions, we conform or differ from the work of previous scholars in addition to highlighting the unique contribution of our own work or how our work is different from the prior studies.

-> It is recommended to have a separate section for the study's contribution/implications (theoretical or practical).

Author Response

Thank a lot for your helpful comments.

The paper is a reasonable effort, It provides valuable insights into the concepts of configurational analysis, inbound and outbound innovation, and the competitive advantage of SMEs. However, the author/s needs to make some amendments.

Question 1: -> The practical research GAP is well explained, however, the theoretical gap is not well explained scientifically. Therefore, the authors are advised to revise and modify the introduction section with proper justification and arguments from the literature. In this regard, the authors are recommended to add theoretical gaps and contributions from the previous studies. For instance; how the current study is different than the following studies in terms of theoretical and methodological contribution?

1. Musiello-Neto, F., Rua, O. L., Arias-Oliva, M., & Silva, A. F. (2021). Open Innovation and Competitive Advantage on the Hospitality Sector: The Role of Organizational Strategy. Sustainability, 13(24), 13650.
2. Liao, S., Liu, Z., & Ma, C. (2019). Direct and configurational paths of open innovation and organisational agility to business model innovation in SMEs. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 31(10), 1213-1228.
3. Almeida, F. (2021). Open-innovation practices: Diversity in Portuguese SMEs. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(3), 169.
4. Ibarra, D., Bigdeli, A. Z., Igartua, J. I., & Ganzarain, J. (2020). Business model innovation in established SMEs: A configurational approach. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(3), 76.
5. Radicic, D., Pugh, G., & Trent, U. K. (2014). The Impact of Inbound and Outbound Open Innovations: Empirical Evidence for SMEs across Europe. ECIE 2014 University of Ulster and School of Social Enterprises Ireland Belfast, UK 18-19 September 2014, 368.

Response=We have done so in introduction. See blue highlighted text in introduction and blue highlighted references.

Question-> It is recommended to use full terms, especially in the introduction, hypotheses, and discussion part rather than using abbreviations to increase the academic significance of the manuscript. For instance; OI, CA, IOI, OOI and fsQCA.

Response: We have done so.

Question->  Hypotheses development is weak. There is a need for extensive readings while developing the hypotheses. It is recommended each hypothesis must be discussed separately. Also please check the numbering of the hypotheses. Similarly the hypothesis building needs theoretical backing (theory or any developed research model).

We have done so: we have expanded the theoretical background and also we have revised how we have built up hypotheses (see text blue highlighted).

-Question> Do read and cite the following studies in your manuscript:

1. ANUNTARUMPORN, N., & SORHSARUHT, P. (2022). The Impact of Innovation Capability of Firms on Competitive Advantage: An Empirical Study of the ICT Industry in Thailand. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 9(2), 121-131.
2. Sun, Y., Xu, X., Yu, H., & Wang, H. (2022). Impact of value co‐creation in the artificial intelligence innovation ecosystem on competitive advantage and innovation intelligibility. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 39(3), 474-488.
3. Mehmood, K. K., & Hanaysha, J. R. (2022). Impact of corporate social responsibility, green intellectual capital, and green innovation on competitive advantage: building contingency model. International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals (IJHCITP), 13(1), 1-14.
4. Fareed, M., Noor, W. S., Isa, M. F., & Salleh, S. S. (2016). Developing Human Capital for Sustainable Competitive Advantage: The Roles of Organizational Culture and High Performance Work System. International Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(4).

Response: We have done so (see blue highlighted references)

Question-> I strongly suggest including the research model/framework (diagram) in the study for a better understanding of the research.

Response: we have added figure 1.

Question-> Present and document the quality of the methodology in a better way. To ensure the quality of the overall research process, the study must have rigor.

Response= We have revised this question.

Question-> Discussion is very weak. Needless to say, when it comes to discussing findings and contributions, we conform or differ from the work of previous scholars in addition to highlighting the unique contribution of our own work or how our work is different from the prior studies.

Response=We have expanded discussion (see blue highlighted)

Question-> It is recommended to have a separate section for the study's contribution/implications (theoretical or practical).

Response=We have done so.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors analyze both inbound and outward innovation from a configurational perspective. Although the article is logically structured and well-organized, the following sections may be improved.

1. the Introduction section.

The purpose of the study and the research questions were not explicitly stated. Why was the Portuguese hospitality industry's SMEs chosen as the study's focus? Is there anything that sets Portugal's hospitality sector apart from those of other nations in terms of both inbound and outbound innovation?

2. The discussion section.

The authors mostly examine the theoretical implications of the research findings without discussing the practical implications for stakeholders. Could SMEs in the Portuguese hospitality sector benefit from the study's findings in any way?

Author Response

Thanks a lot for your helpful comments

The authors analyze both inbound and outward innovation from a configurational perspective. Although the article is logically structured and well-organized, the following sections may be improved.

Question=1. the Introduction section.

The purpose of the study and the research questions were not explicitly stated. Why was the Portuguese hospitality industry's SMEs chosen as the study's focus? Is there anything that sets Portugal's hospitality sector apart from those of other nations in terms of both inbound and outbound innovation?

Response=We have motivated better this question (see blue highlighted text in lines 574-592)

Question 2. The discussion section. The authors mostly examine the theoretical implications of the research findings without discussing the practical implications for stakeholders. Could SMEs in the Portuguese hospitality sector benefit from the study's findings in any way?

Response=We have expanded this question. We have introduces a subsection discussing practical implications and added new text (blue highlighted).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf