The Use of Technology Assisted by Artificial Intelligence Depending on the Companies’ Digital Maturity Level

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research methodology in the context of the results obtained is not clear to me. How, for example, were the 15 dimensions describing individual maturity levels identified (lines 276-278)? How was the interval scale determined (Figure 2)? The authors write: "The interval scale formed by the intersection of the answer variants presents a detailed description for each individual level." (lines 284-285). This sentence is unclear to me - what does "intersection of the answer variants" mean?

Below Table 1 there is an explanation: "For level 5: the mentioned activities are integrated into almost all operational and strategic aspects of the organization, including all the mentioned activities at lower levels, but using a varied and complex range of AI techniques to achieve advanced and integrated results.” (lines 407-409). It's not entirely clear to me what this explanation is about. Furthermore, the activities of each level must be integrated with those listed at lower levels.

There is also a question to what extent the digital maturity model proposed by the authors is better (more complete) than other models functioning in the literature on the subject. Unfortunately, the authors do not refer to other models at all in the literature review. The presented model appears to be only a theoretical model. It is difficult to deduce what research was the basis for its development (systematic literature analysis, case study?).

You should therefore: 1. link the literature review with conducted research aimed at building a new digital maturity model. 2. Discuss the methodology in detail in the context of the research being conducted. 3. Indicate the advantages of the proposed model compared to models previously described in the literature.

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article investigates the relationship between digital maturity and AI adoption in business. Although the topic is interesting and relevant, the methodological rigor of the study is lacking in several respects. First of all, the authors do not adequately contextualize their study within the marketing industry. From a certain point onward (sect. 2.3) the authors mention that they focus on marketing agencies, but they do not explain why this is an important area of interest. They also do not discuss the implications of their findings for the marketing industry as a whole.

In the methodology section, the authors do not provide enough information about the survey. They state that a sample of 2077 companies was used, but they do not provide any details about how the sample was selected or how the survey was administered. This makes it difficult to assess the representativeness of the sample and the reliability of the findings.

The case study is not adequately described. The authors state that they conducted five case studies, but they do not provide any information about the agencies that were selected or how the case studies were conducted. This makes it difficult to assess the generalizability of the findings. The authors do not adequately specify that the use an existing digital maturity framework (source 39), organized around 17 skills (the authors use only 15, why?) and 5 levels of maturity. Given the use of this "evaluation tool" in pursuit of the research objective, the authors should be more explicit about this, explaining already at the conceptual level that the level of digital maturity is strongly linked to the skills that the company demonstrates about digital management, so as to better explain the difference from the concept of digitalization. Since there are no specifics on the sample of companies investigated, Figure 1 is not explanatory (what do the 4 areas correspond to?). Maturity levels should be presented and explained in the methodology section and not among the results, as the measurement scale used. 

The reader expects to know how the level of digital maturity is distributed with reference to the ability to use AI among the investigated companies, which never emerges. Since there are no results from the questionnaire nor the review of specialized literature that the authors mention in section 2.3, it is unclear, therefore, how the authors developed the list of activities of marketing agencies that would be most efficient through AI. We recommend, all of the above, a thorough revision of the article, especially in deepening the methodological approach and the statement of results.

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I accept the corrections made to the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to begin by commending the authors for their substantial effort in revising the previous version of this paper. The improvements made are evident, particularly in the enhanced clarity of the questionnaire structure and the more detailed explanation of the measurement scales employed. I found the authors' approach of identifying typologies to be particularly insightful, as it provides actionable insights into the unique characteristics and challenges associated with each level of digital maturity. This, in turn, enables the development of targeted strategies for AI adoption and digital transformation initiatives.
While I appreciate the enhanced clarity in the methodology section, I would still recommend providing more details on the sampling method used to select the 2,077 digital marketing agencies. Specifying details like random sampling, stratified sampling, or convenience sampling will further enhance transparency and allow readers to better assess the representativeness of the sample. Additionally, including information about the geographical context and specific characteristics (e.g., size, industry, age) of the participating agencies would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the sample and improve the generalizability of the findings.
I also suggest explicitly contextualizing the research to the marketing sector within the abstract. Briefly mentioning the relevance of the study to marketing professionals and potential applications in marketing practice would enhance the abstract's overall impact and attract a wider readership.
Overall, the authors have made significant strides in improving the quality of their research. With a few minor revisions, as suggested above, this paper has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the field of digital marketing and AI adoption.