Decision-Making Procedures and Their Relation to Knowledge Management and Quality Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper could benefit from a deeper approach on how the knowledge management created opportunities for some state entities or companies from Slovakia. Adding an econometric model that could compare the investment in knowledge management and the extra output generated for some companies or a nationwide economy, but it is not mandatory, just for increasing the relevance of the research.

Author Response

Thanks for the recommendations.
We have edited the article in terms of formalities and some content requirements,  whitin the options.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The aim of the paper is not clear. The paper is not consistent with the objectives of the Special Issue, in which Knowledge sharing and Knowledge managment are clearly linked to the question of sustainability (the term does not appear in the text).  The methodology is practically not explained. The results  illustrate the Cynefin framework. The discussion does not concern "original" results, but shows results of a survey made a Big Four (Deloitte),  

 

Author Response

Thanks for the recommendations.
We have modified the article in terms of formalities and some content requirements within the possibilities. We focused on supplementing the text in the context of sustainability and the Cynefin framework.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Although the topic is potentially interesting, this manuscript needs more clarity and structure in its approach to the subject.  Please find below a few suggestions.

• The title is too long, and “Decision-Making” is repeated 3 times.
• The introduction isn’t properly structured: there are presented various uncorrelated ideas, but the reader has difficulty to clearly understand the context of the research, its goals, and its contributions.
• Pages 3 and 4 present textbook-like definitions and information of the larger research area, instead of a critical, thorough analysis of the literature on a limited topic, as it should be expected of a research article. Literature review could be enriched, especially considering that the existing references listed in the paper are rather old.
• The paper introduces a new theory, the CYNEFIN framework, without specifying a reference for it. It is unclear if this is the authors contribution.
• On a minor note, additional proofreading is necessary. E.g., line 236: “it is very often referred to as emerging or emerging”. Some figures lack indication of the source (e.g., Figure 1. Decision-making process, Figure 4. Knowledge management concerning decision-making, etc.). If possible, provide higher resolution for figures.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, we tried to incorporate as much as possible into the text, we changed the title, we changed the content of the introduction according to your recommendations and I also added information about the Cynefin framework and formal shortcomings in the gradual steps according to your review.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Certainly significant improvements have been made, However (on my opinion) the link between knwledge management and sustainability is not yet clear. 

Author Response

Thanks for your comments, we've adjusted the text accordingly in line 40-54.

I firmly believe that we have met your expectations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Centainly significant improvements have been made. However (on my opinion) the link between knowledge management and sustainability is not yet clear.  The same term "sustainability" is used very few times in the text. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for the comments we applied to the text, respecting the changes in the context of the original concept.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx