Technology Valuation Method for Supporting Knowledge Management in Technology Decisions to Gain Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper discusses a technology valuation method (TVM) based on knowledge management (KM) using the design research methodology (DRM) in terms of three case studies. It seems to look interesting, however has not lacked important points to make it less novel and efficient as it was expected.

1) Although the introduction section introduces a research gap in technology decisions and research questions, it was not clear (at least to me) why the authors want to do this. What are contributions of this method to the literature and to industries? how it can be applicable in different contexts? Overall this section must be improved to clarify research objectives and significance of this study.

2) The organisation of this paper must be reorganised. The literature review should go before the material and methods section. The disorganised format would make the paper difficult to follow. Section 2 (material and methods) needs to be explain in details. Specifically, how case studies were conducted in a mining business during 2017/2018? (e.g. sample size, type of survey, etc..). Each study such as Descriptive or Prescriptive should be expounded and then how the results are demonstrated.

3) Section 3 (literature review) should be also critically revised by reviewing what previous studies did, what was a gap and how the current study can fill in these gaps. Section 4 showed the results but indeed did not link to Section 2 (Material and methods). Up to this stage, it was not transparent whether this study is a theoretically descriptive or an empirical study. As mentioned earlier, the authors conducted three case studies, but did not show what they actually did and presented the findings. Section 4 illustrated two complicated figures but did not explain how they worked. 

4) In discussion and conclusions, the authors said "TVM can be used to achieve sustainable competitive advantage …?" What is sustainable competitive advantage? This term needs to discuss. It does not imply any linkage in this paper.

Minor comments

5) In the first page, ".... which includes five steps …" . What are "five steps?. In page 11, "... in the field of sustainability by using …." It does not make sense. The citation needs to be provided in paragraph 2 of this paper.

6) The English language needs to be carefully checked throughout the paper. The authors may want to have a professional editor help them for this.

Thank you & good luck with your paper.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for our comments. You can find the point-by-point response from word file attached.

BR

Janne Mämmelä

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I believe the value and significance of the TVM process is high not only for researchers but also for business owners.  I think it would help the focus on technology to focus only on the case study in 4.4.  Then the metal additive manufacturing technology in Figure 1 can be explained.  What is being used now? Could there be potential problems? Otherwise, the paper will be valuable to only those in the mining field, which would be disappointing, since the question of whether to adopt new technology is of major significance to all businesses, whether it be an AI system that replaces accountants or an algorithm that can screen home mortgage applicants.

p. 4 "A three-dimensional model for describing the framework of KM was presented by [21], who added the enabling condition level to the aforementioned outcomes and context. The influence of knowledge, innovation, and technology management capabilities on research and development is examined in [22],"  In most of the paper, references are identified when a specific concept developed by the referenced author is presented, which should be followed for [21].  This also applies to [22] which refers to a paper that has significance for the research of this paper.

p. 6 Figure 2 is an excellent model for explaining the TVM process.

p. 6  "Previous studies related to method and it´s development" It's = it is  This needs to say" its development"

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your comments. You can find the point-by-point response from word file attached.

BR

Janne Mämmelä

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

the topic is interesting. The design research methodology (DRM) used with three case studies in an industry environment to develop and evaluate a novel technology valuation method (TVM) seems appropriate. Furthermore, the fact that tacit knowledge is made visible and documented during the process adds knowledge to a long and historical scientific debate.

The manuscript needs some improvements before becoming suitable for publication.

1) Section 2 and 3 must be swapped. 

2) RQs must be derived from gaps identified in the literature review. This is important to clarify your contribution.

3) At the end of the introduction you state: "To describe the knowledge required, acquire the knowledge from individuals and the organization, and use the knowledge to support technology decisions the following research questions (RQ) were set. These are answered using the design research methodology (DRM) [17] and three case studies [18], which were conducted in the real industry environment of an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) in a mining business." You need to explain why this sector could be useful for your purpose. For example, you can consider the following works (1-Bigliardi, B., Ivo Dormio, A., & Galati, F. (2010). ICTs and knowledge management: an Italian case study of a construction company. Measuring Business Excellence, 14(3), 16-29.   2-Bigliardi, B., Galati, F., & Petroni, A. (2014). How to effectively manage knowledge in the construction industry. Measuring Business Excellence, 18(3), 57-72.) to explain that this is of interest because of the project-based nature of the sector.

4) Please try to improve the flow of the discourse in the introduction.

Best regards

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your comments. You can find the point-by-point response from word file attached.

BR

Janne Mämmelä

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Many thanks for your revised paper.

It seemed that you have answered all questions albeit they have still been a tad sluggish.

Some minor concerns as below are for your perusal:

-         Page 2, line 82 “Based on case studies, there were no barriers to use the TVM also in other contexts”. You may want to reword this sentence to make it more valid. Case studies are only used/explained in specific contexts, could not be generalised to broad contexts as you indicated in the conclusion section. Also please check English for lines 81-82 (tense and article used in the English language)

-         Font size in all figures is too small to be seen in normal pages. You might need to fix them where possible to improve readability of audience.

-         You should explain a bit more Figure 1, for example, what sector is related to this figure, and why you want to take it as an example, etc. In general, ensure that readers can keep track what you are meaning. This is also applicable to other figures in your paper.

-         Page 5, lines 224-226, explain why you choose a mining business as a case study.

-         Check “error in reference” throughout the paper, for example Page 5, line 208; page 6, line 226

-         Page 13, line 400, you wrote “When evaluating the validity of the results, tacit knowledge is captured, modelled, and validated with company personnel in workshops.” It is hard to get through this because in your paper, you have just suggested the way to process the TVM via interviews (case studies). It looks like as a qualitative study. In fact, you did not conduct modelling and validation in a quantitative method of analysis. You should state clearly in the methodology section what kind of method you want to use to address the research questions.

-         Limitations should be clearly indicated including future studies.

-         Finally, I would recommend you have a professional editor to check English of the paper.

Thanks and good luck with your research

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Attached you can find the point-by-point response to your comments.

BR

Janne Mämmelä

Author Response File: Author Response.docx