What Influences the Servitization Process the Most? A Perspective of Polish Machinery Manufacturers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper, in itself, is a worthwhile paper. The limitation of being in a single country is not really an issue as I still believe much of it is generalizable. The paper is written in a interesting manner, except there are several grammar errors which detract from the readability of the paper (a few examples are:
In the process approach, is described as a process of change 32 in which the manufacturing companies adopt orientation towards the provision of services and/or 33 develop the offer by a greater number and more advanced services to meet customer needs, achieve 34 a competitive advantage and increase the efficiency of operations [4].
It results are presented in Table 9. It 371 occurred that cluster 1 is dominated (42%) by small enterprises.
Therefore, it is advisable to pay more attention to the opinions (factors 476 assessment) of companies who were gathered in cluster 3 and take into detail consideration all 9 477 factors while products and service integration in manufacturing companies.
These sentences are grammatically incorrect or they do not make sense. Please note these are only examples: there are several other areas that should be cleaned up.
However, the conclusion should also be modified as it does not explicitly state the value of the paper. The conclusions are not strongly stated. The authors need to make it clear what is the value of the paper (also include some of this in the abstract).
Author Response
Point 1: The paper, in itself, is a worthwhile paper. The limitation of being in a single country is not really an issue as I still believe much of it is generalizable. The paper is written in a interesting manner, except there are several grammar errors which detract from the readability of the paper (a few examples are:
In the process approach, is described as a process of change 32 in which the manufacturing companies adopt orientation towards the provision of services and/or 33 develop the offer by a greater number and more advanced services to meet customer needs, achieve 34 a competitive advantage and increase the efficiency of operations [4].
It results are presented in Table 9. It 371 occurred that cluster 1 is dominated (42%) by small enterprises.
Therefore, it is advisable to pay more attention to the opinions (factors 476 assessment) of companies who were gathered in cluster 3 and take into detail consideration all 9 477 factors while products and service integration in manufacturing companies.
These sentences are grammatically incorrect or they do not make sense. Please note these are only examples: there are several other areas that should be cleaned up.
Response 1: The paper has been corrected with the use of professional proofreading English language services so hopefully there is no such errors any more.
Point 2: The conclusion should also be modified as it does not explicitly state the value of the paper. The conclusions are not strongly stated. The authors need to make it clear what is the value of the paper (also include some of this in the abstract).
Response 2: As recommended I modified the conclusion section with more explicit statements about the value of the paper (lines 727-732) and a few more inferences from the conducted analysis (lines 667-690, 734-737). I also included this in the abstract of the paper (lines 23-28)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic of the article is interesting. Unfortunately, the problem of the research cannot be just a lack of research. The topic and the importance of the problem in general as well as in the Polish context should be better opened. It is, therefore, necessary to better disclose the purpose of the article and the tasks of the study. The methodology and sample seem appropriate. It is not entirely clear to the reader which machinery manufacturers are involved and which part of the relevant sector in Poland. As the literature references mention companies offering different product ranges, it would be necessary to open the profile of the surveyed/interviewed companies in this study as well. Given the reference to the corresponding industry in developed countries, it would be good to understand Poland's difference. It is also clear that a survey of manufacturers cannot provide a complete picture of the meaning of the related service from the customer's point of view. It is also not clear what type of customers/end-users are meant. The questionnaire mainly mapped the respondents' subjective opinion (7-point scale). Consequently, the objective measurability of the factors remained modest, which the author should acknowledge. Results. Cluster analysis seems appropriate. Unfortunately, the presentation of the results in Figure 4 is very difficult to read. It should definitely be indicated what share, number of companies were in different clusters and whether and what were the differences in the production of these producers (mechanics, electrical engineering, electronics?). Also, what is the relationship of these products to the end consumer. As a large part of the surveyed companies' sectoral and product information is missing, the reason for the clustering of companies is not clear either. Whether it was solely due to the attitudes of business leaders, pricing policies or the business logic of a particular product group. Therefore, the conclusions of the article remain incomplete and it is not possible to make appropriate recommendations to companies. Some technical notes. In English, in country names the first letter is always capitalized: Polish. The titles of figures and tables cannot be understood independently without examining the text of the article. In English, a decimal fraction is separated by a dot, not a comma
Author Response
Point 1: The topic of the article is interesting. Unfortunately, the problem of the research cannot be just a lack of research. The topic and the importance of the problem in general as well as in the Polish context should be better opened. It is, therefore, necessary to better disclose the purpose of the article and the tasks of the study.
Response 1: The introduction has been revised in order to express the research problem in more explicit way and also to justify better the need for such study, also in Polish context (llines 54-63, 71-81, 93-96). The research problem has been formulated in the form of research questions. (lines 97-100)
Point 2: The methodology and sample seem appropriate. It is not entirely clear to the reader which machinery manufacturers are involved and which part of the relevant sector in Poland. As the literature references mention companies offering different product ranges, it would be necessary to open the profile of the surveyed/interviewed companies in this study as well. Given the reference to the corresponding industry in developed countries, it would be good to understand Poland's difference.
Response 2: In the section 4.1. Survey research results a description of the surveyed companies was complemented with more information about their profile (product ranges and customer/end-user) - as far as the data obtained in the study allowed (lines 308-323)
Point 3: It is also clear that a survey of manufacturers cannot provide a complete picture of the meaning of the related service from the customer's point of view. It is also not clear what type of customers/end-users are meant. The questionnaire mainly mapped the respondents' subjective opinion (7-point scale). Consequently, the objective measurability of the factors remained modest, which the author should acknowledge.
Response 3: Although the customer’s point of view constitutes a vital part of the complete picture of the meaning of related services provided by manufacturers it was not involved into the scope of this research. The main aim of this study was to recognize the manufacturers’ point of view. So regrettably, it is not possible to present a customer point of view in this paper. But of course, the author is aware of the importance of customer influence on the process of any kind of service provision. It seems even more crucial in manufacturing companies which expand service activity than in service sector because the relationship manufacturer-customer changes significantly during the servitization process. So. their point of view should be also studied to complete the whole picture of understanding the servitization process. This is stated now clearly in the conclusion section of the paper.
However, the respondents have been asked about the end-user of their products – in general relation: either is it B2B or B2C. And this information is now added in the sample description (lines 331-334).
The statement about the subjectivisms of the factors' measurability has been also acknowledged in the conclusion section.
Point 4: Cluster analysis seems appropriate. Unfortunately, the presentation of the results in Figure 4 is very difficult to read. It should definitely be indicated what share, number of companies were in different clusters and whether and what were the differences in the production of these producers (mechanics, electrical engineering, electronics?). Also, what is the relationship of these products to the end consumer. As a large part of the surveyed companies' sectoral and product information is missing, the reason for the clustering of companies is not clear either. Whether it was solely due to the attitudes of business leaders, pricing policies or the business logic of a particular product group.
Therefore, the conclusions of the article remain incomplete and it is not possible to make appropriate recommendations to companies.
Response3: Figure 4 was generated by the Statistica software so unfortunately it is impossible to improve its quality or clarity. So, as recommeded by the Reviewer, it was indicated what share and number of companies were in different clusters (lines 398-401). There were no differences in the production profiles between the cluster – it was now clearly described at the end of 4.1 section (lines 530-546). The reasons of clustering are the similarities and differences in opinions about the importance of the factors influencing servitization of manufacturing. Bearing that in mind, the conclusions focus on machinery manufacturing sector companies.
Point 4: Some technical notes. In English, in country names the first letter is always capitalized: Polish. The titles of figures and tables cannot be understood independently without examining the text of the article. In English, a decimal fraction is separated by a dot, not a comma
Response 4: Indicated errors has been corrected. Also, the paper has been improved in terms of language style using the professional proofreading service. However, I found it extremely difficult to reformulate titles of figures and tables. I did some amendments. If it is not enough, please give an example of how it should be done.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper almost lacks the theoretical background. The author should add literature review section and in this section describe on the basis of new and relevant literature state of the art in the field.
On basis on this part Author should improve discussion section - there is need comparison the results with other international studies.
In conclusion, is worth to add limitation of the study and social implications of the research.
Author Response
Point 1: The paper almost lacks the theoretical background. The author should add literature review section and in this section describe on the basis of new and relevant literature state of the art in the field.
Response 1: The literature review was originally presented partly in the Introduction and partly in the section 3.1. Background. As recommended, I added the section 3. Theoretical background – literature review results. Although still in the Introduction a small part of the literature review results is presented, in order to present the research gaps. Introduction has also been revised (lines 54-63, 71-81. 93-100). Section 3. Theoretical background – literature review results, which is now added, presents state-of-the-art in the field of determinants that affect the process of servitization in manufacturing sectors. It encompasses the previous content of section 3.1 Background, which was extensively revised and completed with results of the wider literature review (lines 163-251).
Point 2: On basis on this part Author should improve discussion section - there is need comparison the results with other international studies.
Response 2: As recommended the discussion section has been improved and extended (lines. 622-628, 667-690). However, it is impossible to compare the result of this study to other international studies, because no such study (quantitative research in relation to assessment of importance of servitization determinants) has been identified in the literature Most studies which are related to the factors conditioning the process of servitization are qualitative in nature. This study is therefore original in that point.
Point 3: In conclusion, is worth to add limitation of the study and social implications of the research.
Response 2: A limitation of the study has been indicated in the conclusion (lines 739-755). I also tried to formulate some social implication of this research (lines 678-690)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The article has developed significantly and now answers most of the questions that reading it raises in the reader.
It is not clear from the sample that it is representative of the Polish manufacturing industry.
In some cases, the author has even exaggerated the wording of the title of the table or figure, eg "nine factors", if it is read directly. At the same time, the correspondence between dimensions 1 and 2, which is indicating income and cluster belonging, as the title claims, has not been disclosed (Fig. 6).
Although it can be read from the interviews which processes (resulting from the environment and internal learning) have led cluster 3 companies to their current position. This development did not depend on the sectoral affiliation of the production company as the author mentions. It is not really clear what is the reason for clustering, whether it is the attitude of managers or the reaction to market / target group developments or the difference in development dynamics. It would be good if the author found an opportunity to evaluate it or recommend it for further research.
Author Response
Point 1: The article has developed significantly and now answers most of the questions that reading it raises in the reader.
It is not clear from the sample that it is representative of the Polish manufacturing industry.
Response 1: It is obviously very important issue, so the explanation has been added – the sample is represresentative for the analzyed sector (lines309-311)
Point 2: In some cases, the author has even exaggerated the wording of the title of the table or figure, eg "nine factors", if it is read directly. At the same time, the correspondence between dimensions 1 and 2, which is indicating income and cluster belonging, as the title claims, has not been disclosed (Fig. 6).
Response 2: The titles has been revised and some modification has been made (e.g. table 1 and table 2). As far as correspondence analysis is concerned (fig 6.), the correspondence (relationship) between variables may be observed on the basis of a distance between categories of each variable. The dimensions (1 and 2) are related to the categories of variables and the number of dimensions is connected with the term “intertia”, which explains the share of each dimension in the chi-square value (inertia is a similar measure to the variance). According to the author who developed the method (please see the Grenacre works) the results obtained in my studies in fact indicate a relationship between variables, as it was described (lines 470-481)
Reviewer 3 Report
The Author has do a good job and the version is mostly improved.
Still, I think the theoretical background should be improved - most positions are old. About 20-40% of od literature should be not older than 5 years. It would be good to improve it.
Author Response
Point 1: Still, I think the theoretical background should be improved - most positions are old. About 20-40% of the literature should be not older than 5 years. It would be good to improve it.
Response 1: The literature review has been supplemented by several recently published papers (see references: 1, 5, 16, 60). Currently, literature published in the years 2015–2020 constitutes 31% of the list of references.
The paper has been corrected by the proffesional proofreader.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Autor implemented my remarks.
Author Response
Thank you for noticing the positive aspects of the article. I appreciate all your accurate observations and comments indicated in the review.
