Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is relevant, and the manuscript is well structured and clearly written. The case study illustrates the organisational challenges involved in implementing the analysis.

However, several aspects of the article should be strengthened before publication.

1. Literature review

An integrative literature review would benefit from a clearer description of the research strategy and selection process. The manuscript states that 35 sources were identified; however, the criteria used to select these sources and the screening procedure are not fully explained.

2. Development of a Conceptual Framework

The article identifies 14 CSFs and groups them into five pillars; however, the analytical process that led to this classification could be explained more clearly. Greater clarification of the coding or categorisation process would increase methodological transparency.

3. Positioning in the recent literature

The article could more explicitly address recent research on analytical capabilities, data-driven organisations, and digital transformation more explicitly. This would help clarify the specific contribution of the proposed framework.

4. Case study methodology

The Bulmer case study is interesting and well described. However, additional information on the documentary sources used (types of documents, period covered, and analysis approach) would improve the credibility of the empirical analysis.

Minor comments

a. Presentation of the table Some of the tables are quite dense and difficult to read, particularly Table 2, which maps various sources in relation to the five pillars. The authors may wish to simplify this table or move parts of it to an appendix.

b. Terminology. The concept of “political will” is central to the framework; however, a clearer definition is provided at the beginning of the article. Readers from the information system community may interpret this concept in different ways.

c. Historical context. The historical narrative of the Bulmer case is engaging; however, some sections could be slightly shortened to maintain the focus on the research questions and analytical framework.

d. Figures. The conceptual framework diagram could benefit from a slightly clearer visual explanation, particularly regarding the relationships between the five pillars and organisational performance.

With the suggested revisions, the article could make a valuable contribution to research on the implementation of analytics and organisational decision-making.

I hope these suggestions will help the authors strengthen the paper.

Author Response

Please see uploaded file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript investigates the critical success factors (CSFs) associated with the deployment of business analytics systems and proposes a conceptual framework consisting of five organizational pillars: technology, data, people, process, and political will. The framework is subsequently illustrated through a historical case study of HP Bulmer’s analytics initiatives in the 1990s. The topic is relevant and the manuscript is clearly structured. The case material also provides an interesting historical perspective on analytics deployment. However, several conceptual and methodological issues limit the strength of the theoretical contribution.

1. The manuscript proposes a framework that groups fourteen CSFs into five pillars. While this structure synthesizes themes in the analytics and information systems literature, the manuscript does not clearly demonstrate how the framework advances existing theoretical understanding. Many of the pillars correspond closely to constructs already widely discussed in prior research. The contribution therefore appears closer to a consolidation of established themes than to the development of a new conceptual perspective.
2. The proposed framework appears to define analytics success largely in terms of the presence of the five pillars identified by the authors, which are themselves derived from factors already associated with successful analytics deployment in the literature. The framework therefore risks becoming conceptually tautological, in the sense that success is explained by the presence of success factors identified ex post. This issue also raises concerns regarding the alignment between the research questions and the research design. The manuscript does not clearly explain how the fourteen CSFs were systematically identified from the literature (RQ1), how they were analytically grouped into the five pillars (RQ2), or how the HP Bulmer case provides empirical evaluation rather than illustration of the framework (RQ3). As a result, it remains unclear whether the framework offers explanatory power beyond a descriptive classification of known success conditions.
3. The manuscript reports conducting an integrative literature review identifying thirty-five sources from which fourteen CSFs were derived. However, the review procedure is only briefly described. Additional information regarding the search strategy, screening criteria, and analytical procedures used to derive the CSFs and group them into the five pillars would strengthen methodological transparency.
4. The conceptual boundaries among the five pillars remain somewhat unclear. In particular, the construct of political will appears to overlap with concepts already discussed in the literature such as top management support, governance structures, and decision authority. Further clarification of how the pillars are conceptually differentiated would strengthen the coherence of the framework.
5. The HP Bulmer case study provides an interesting historical illustration of analytics deployment challenges. However, the case analysis currently functions primarily as an illustration of the proposed framework rather than as a rigorous empirical evaluation of it. The manuscript would benefit from clarifying the analytical criteria used to assess the presence of the pillars and from strengthening the linkage between the framework and the empirical evidence.
6. Several minor issues could also be addressed to improve clarity. The literature mapping table is extensive and may be simplified. The discussion section could more clearly emphasize the theoretical implications of the findings. Incorporating additional recent studies on analytics governance and data driven decision making may also help situate the framework within contemporary research. In addition, presenting the literature selection process in a PRISMA-style flow diagram would improve transparency.

The manuscript addresses a relevant topic and presents an informative historical case illustrating organizational challenges in analytics deployment. With clearer articulation of the theoretical contribution, greater transparency in the literature review methodology, and a stronger analytical integration of the conceptual framework with the case evidence, the manuscript could make a more substantial contribution to the literature on analytics implementation and organizational decision making.

Author Response

Please see uploaded file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, Thank you for considering Analytics to publish your latest research. The manuscript you proposed is interesting, but there are certain segments that need to be addressed. I put all my suggestions in the comments below. Comment 1. First of all, you should further elaborate on how the new theoretical insight that the proposed framework provides goes beyond existing CSF models. Comment 2. Should you further elaborate on the criteria used to select and analyse documentary sources regarding the HP Bulmer case? Comment 3. You need to clearly explain the scope of analytical generalisation. How are findings relevant for other analytics initiatives, especially if we consider when the takeover of the company occurred? Comment 4. Font used in all figures must be the same one used in the remainder of the manuscript. Please unify that. Comment 5. Especially create new figures 4 and 5. Comment 6. There are certain formatting issues (for example, multiple spaces between words, etc.). Comment 7. Out of 73 references, there are only 18 references from the past five years (2025-3; 2024-8; 2023-4; 2022-2; 2021-1). You should incorporate several more references from the past five years, especially from 2025 and particularly within contemporary analytics research. Comment 8. I condemn the information you provided in Tables 1 and 2. It is always a great idea to sublimate data in such a manner. That is an important scientific contribution.

Author Response

Please see uploaded file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revised manuscript and the detailed response letter. The revisions improve the article in several important respects, notably in clarifying the analytical methodology, explaining the coding process used to develop the conceptual framework, and presenting the case study. 
However, the revised manuscript does not appear to have been fully finalised prior to submission. The current version contains numerous editorial errors, merged or duplicated text, formatting inconsistencies and citation numbering issues, which make the manuscript difficult to read in places and suggest that a final, revised and clean version should be prepared. 
Furthermore, the presentation of the tables still requires attention, particularly given the inconsistency between the response letter and the manuscript regarding the relocation of the dense classification table. In-text citations and the formatting of references should also be carefully checked for consistency and compliance with the journal’s style. 
Overall, the revision is appreciated, but the manuscript still requires a final, careful round of editorial cleaning.

Author Response

Please see uploaded file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript shows effort in addressing the previous reviewers’ comments. However, several significant issues remain unresolved, as outlined below.

Major Comments

1. The theoretical contribution remains unclear. The five-pillar framework largely reflects a structured synthesis of existing constructs rather than a clear advancement of theory. The manuscript does not sufficiently explain what new insight the framework provides or whether it offers a causal, process, or conditional explanation. The manuscript currently positions its contribution as a consolidation of existing themes, and it remains unclear whether this level of contribution is sufficient for publication in a research journal. Further clarification beyond categorization is required.
2. The issue of conceptual tautology persists. The framework continues to explain success through the presence of factors already associated with success. The manuscript does not clearly specify how or why the five pillars lead to outcomes. The revision improves methodological transparency; however, the concern regarding theoretical logic remains insufficiently addressed. A more explicit explanatory logic is required, such as interactions, dependencies, or mechanisms linking the pillars to success or failure.
3. The case study remains primarily illustrative. Although the manuscript refers to an analytical lens, the analysis is based on narrative mapping rather than systematic evaluation. There are no clear criteria for assessing the pillars or demonstrating how the case supports or refines the framework. The case is positioned as an illustration rather than an evaluation, which limits its ability to provide empirical support for the framework. Stronger analytical structure is needed.
4. Conceptual boundaries among the five pillars remain partly overlapping. In particular, political will overlaps with top management support, and process maturity overlaps with governance-related constructs. Further clarification is needed to ensure that each pillar represents a distinct analytical dimension.

Minor Comments

• Table 1 remains dense and difficult to interpret. Consider simplifying its structure or separating the presentation of CSFs and pillar mappings.
• The discussion section could more clearly articulate the theoretical implications of the framework.
• Minor inconsistencies in terminology and formatting remain and should be corrected in a final revision.

Author Response

Please see uploaded file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revised manuscript and for the detailed response letter. The revisions have improved the paper in several important respects, particularly in clarifying the analytical methodology, the coding process, and the presentation of the conceptual framework.

However, the manuscript still requires a final and thorough editorial revision before it can be considered ready for publication.

At this stage of the review process, I would expect a clean and fully finalised version of the manuscript. This is not yet evident in the current submission. The manuscript still reads, in places, as a working or partially edited draft rather than a publication-ready version.

In particular:

1. Editorial quality and consistency
   The manuscript contains signs of incomplete editing, including duplicated or partially revised content (e.g., tables appearing in multiple formats), as well as inconsistencies in formatting across sections.
2. Textual clarity and proofreading
   There are instances of typographical errors and unfinished edits (e.g., merged or residual wording), which affect readability and suggest that the manuscript has not undergone a complete final proofread.
3. Tables and structure
   The presentation and placement of tables still require careful checking. There also appears to be some inconsistency between the manuscript and the response letter regarding structural changes (e.g., relocation of certain tables).
4. References and formatting
   In-text citations and reference formatting should be reviewed to ensure full consistency and compliance with the journal’s guidelines.

I would also note that I do not consider it appropriate to defer these issues to the publisher’s proofing stage. The manuscript should be submitted in a publication-ready form at this point in the process.

Overall, the contribution of the paper is potentially suitable for publication, but a final, careful editorial revision is required to ensure clarity, consistency, and professional presentation.

Author Response

Please see uploaded file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please refer to the attached document for further details.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see uploaded file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 4

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your detailed response.

However, I remain concerned that the manuscript has not yet reached a fully finalised and publication-ready standard.

While you indicate that a comprehensive formatting and proofreading review has been undertaken, the current version of the manuscript still contains clear signs of incomplete editing. For example, there are still instances of duplicated or alternative versions of tables and content (including marked or revised versions appearing alongside clean text), as well as residual inconsistencies in formatting and presentation (see, for instance, the material around Table 1 in the Results section).

This suggests that the manuscript has not undergone a complete final editorial pass.

More broadly, I do not agree that these issues can be deferred to the publisher’s proofing stage. At this stage of the review process, the manuscript should be submitted in a clean, consistent, and fully finalised form.

Addressing isolated formatting points (e.g., hyphenation or individual table adjustments) does not fully resolve the broader issue, which concerns the overall editorial coherence and readiness of the manuscript.

I therefore reiterate that a final, careful, end-to-end editorial revision is required before the manuscript can be considered ready for publication.

Author Response

Please see uploaded file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has improved clearly in this revision. The positioning of “political will” is now more convincing, and the role of the HP Bulmer case is better explained. The added implementation mechanisms and the clarification of the Red-Amber-Green criteria make the analysis easier to follow. The paper now presents a coherent sociotechnical perspective linking analytics capability with organizational decision-making. The remaining limitations are acknowledged and do not detract from the overall contribution.

Author Response

Many thanks for your successive reviews which have helped to improve our article.