AUTHORS RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS' COMMENTS (R2)
We are submitting a new version (R2) of the manuscript, according to the questions set by the reviewers and the suggestions of the editor.
The editor has asked us to update the literature. It is an important issue, moreover if we take into account that the manuscript was initially submitted in December 2012, being prepared some months before. We have done it, focusing on Technovation, R&D Management, JPIM, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management but looking at other journals as well.
Reviewer #1 has considered that we have improved the manuscript according to the questions and issues he has raised (see below). He has not set further ...view middle of the document...
There are no considerations of reviewer #2 for the present revision.
Reviewer #3 has set 5 questions. We will discuss question by question, pointing out our understanding and the measures taken for revision 2.
“Reviewer #3: We are grateful on your efforts to improve the manuscript for Technovation. To make the journal more compelling and interesting, the following comments could sharpen your concepts and methodology.
1. In your literature review, you missed the following important authors and articles regarding the product development. Those references in NPD area were the works by Abbie Griffin, Kenneth Kahn, Catherine Killen, Robert Hunt, and others. You should also have more literature review of NPD and innovation from Technovation. We are sure that Technovation has published so many papers on NPD and innovation, but you cited only
two articles from Technovation in your manuscript!!! At this point, we would have the reason to reject your paper since you are not respect the journal and not know what have already been published in the journal well enough.”
We have updated and improved literature review. In the previous version we have focused on the literature on innovation / NPD process, narrowing the focus. That’s why we have not cited well known authors as those mentioned by Reviewer #3. For instance, Abbie Griffin, former editor of JPIM, researches mainly on marketing and product cycle time; he does not focus on process(es) and was not included in the previous version. But as NPD process(es) is related to marketing, sales, cycle time and to many other issues we have agreed with the comment and have introduced these authors. At the same time, we have now cited more than the three Technovation’s papers of the previous version, as well as many other paper in R&D Management, JPIM, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management and others.
2. Your multiple-case-studies methodology is not very strong. You say there are many previous studies utilized the methodology such as the classic work by Eisenhardt (1989). You are correct that the work by Eisenhardt applied the case studies to build the theory, but you only claim that your work "matches well" with those works (i.e. Eisenhardt's article) without explaining in details of the validity and verification of your data collection and analysis (i.e. content validity). Technovation is a famous journal that has a little toleration to the manuscript that lack of rigor methodology and tend to reject that kind of manuscripts.
We have rewritten the methodology section of the manuscript. To make the procedures more clearly for the reader, we have introduced subsections: a) Research Design; b) Sample selection and qualification; c) Data collection, including details of the research protocol; d) Data analysis, including the procedures to analyze the processes, to converge to the typology, and validation.
3.1 Research Design
The purpose of this research is to identify new configurations of...