Editor Comments:
The paper effectively highlights a research gap on the interesting topic of service innovation. In addition, the paper makes a theoretical contribution concerning economic theory of globalization (Huttons and Giddens, 2001). On a constructive note, the unit of analysis needs to be clarified and the mix of top journal articles in the literature review needs improvement. A flaw in the paper is the lack of a conceptual model which would depict relationships between constructs and provide support for the hypotheses. The research method is straightforward but the applicability of the dated Hofstede (2001) data requires further explanation. Without further rationale, a fair criticism could be the paper is a belated spin-off from …show more content…
A shortcoming is that the paper does not sufficiently describe or depict the relationships between the three constructs of culture, innovation and services. Specifically, it’s not clear as to whether services and innovation are one combined construct or two separate constructs. The combined term “service innovation” is used throughout the paper but sometimes words service and innovation are separately noted, such as title of Section 2.3. In addition, the relationship between service and culture is not adequately described or represented.
The proposition in Section 2.3 that innovation activities and services are inextricable linked seemingly merges the constructs of service and innovation into a single construct of “service innovation”. There’s insufficient qualitative and quantitative proof to support this proposition. This critical proposition, which is not one of the hypothesis, is the subsequent dependent variable in in the Hypothesis 1-4. The construct of service innovation needs to be well-defined and depicted in a conceptual …show more content…
A weakness of the research method is the unexplained inconsistency in the time period for sourcing the data as well as the definition and consistency of the dependent variable.
The regression equations in Section 3.1 are particular useful to understand how the variables involved are operationalized. Moreover, the equations in-part compensate for the lack of visual model. The descriptions of the variables, dates, and sources of data in Table 1a enable the reader to understand how the research is operationalized. However, Table 1a should identify the type of variable and the model to which the variable applies.
The dependent variable(s) in Models 1 - 5 are all sourced from the time frame of 2000-2004. Conversely, the independent variables from Hofstede’s (2001) in these same models are sourced from surveys conducted from 1969 to 1972, as noted in section 3.2.2. There’s no discussion to explain the lack of time consistency in the sourcing of the data between the dependent and independent variables in Models 1 - 5. An explanation may be the national cultural dimension data has not changed over the decades since Hofstede’s (2001) analysis of IBM, but there is no explanation. Recommend adding rationale why Hofstede’s data from surveys conducted decades ago is still relevant in today’s
The paper effectively highlights a research gap on the interesting topic of service innovation. In addition, the paper makes a theoretical contribution concerning economic theory of globalization (Huttons and Giddens, 2001). On a constructive note, the unit of analysis needs to be clarified and the mix of top journal articles in the literature review needs improvement. A flaw in the paper is the lack of a conceptual model which would depict relationships between constructs and provide support for the hypotheses. The research method is straightforward but the applicability of the dated Hofstede (2001) data requires further explanation. Without further rationale, a fair criticism could be the paper is a belated spin-off from …show more content…
A shortcoming is that the paper does not sufficiently describe or depict the relationships between the three constructs of culture, innovation and services. Specifically, it’s not clear as to whether services and innovation are one combined construct or two separate constructs. The combined term “service innovation” is used throughout the paper but sometimes words service and innovation are separately noted, such as title of Section 2.3. In addition, the relationship between service and culture is not adequately described or represented.
The proposition in Section 2.3 that innovation activities and services are inextricable linked seemingly merges the constructs of service and innovation into a single construct of “service innovation”. There’s insufficient qualitative and quantitative proof to support this proposition. This critical proposition, which is not one of the hypothesis, is the subsequent dependent variable in in the Hypothesis 1-4. The construct of service innovation needs to be well-defined and depicted in a conceptual …show more content…
A weakness of the research method is the unexplained inconsistency in the time period for sourcing the data as well as the definition and consistency of the dependent variable.
The regression equations in Section 3.1 are particular useful to understand how the variables involved are operationalized. Moreover, the equations in-part compensate for the lack of visual model. The descriptions of the variables, dates, and sources of data in Table 1a enable the reader to understand how the research is operationalized. However, Table 1a should identify the type of variable and the model to which the variable applies.
The dependent variable(s) in Models 1 - 5 are all sourced from the time frame of 2000-2004. Conversely, the independent variables from Hofstede’s (2001) in these same models are sourced from surveys conducted from 1969 to 1972, as noted in section 3.2.2. There’s no discussion to explain the lack of time consistency in the sourcing of the data between the dependent and independent variables in Models 1 - 5. An explanation may be the national cultural dimension data has not changed over the decades since Hofstede’s (2001) analysis of IBM, but there is no explanation. Recommend adding rationale why Hofstede’s data from surveys conducted decades ago is still relevant in today’s