Organizational Aspects and Practices for Enhancing Organizational Project Management Maturity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The quality of the article must be improved, from my perspectives, adding next aspects:

1. It is not enough argued, in introduction section,  the relation between organizational performance, actual tendencies in projects management and project management maturity
2. To increase the robustness of theoretical foundation of research it must be used references to contemporary business models management
3. It is enough your practical approach (section 2) in order to sustain the two research mentioned questions 
4. At conclusions section must be extensively exposed a critical analyze related to the topic of title, not just enumeration of main findings of the 3rd section.
5. it is necessary to be developed a dedicated paragraph of limitations of research, otherwise it seems to be a little beat disrupted your approach.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you and appreciate your comments and suggestions. The authors tried our best to provide a sufficient information in addressing your comments. We believe our feedback suffice to improve the manuscript in general.

Please see the attachment.

Comment 1. It is not enough argued, in introduction section,  the relation between organizational performance, actual tendencies in projects management and project management maturity

Response 1: Added new discussion to elaborate the relation in Introduction section, third paragraph.

Comment 2. To increase the robustness of theoretical foundation of research it must be used references to contemporary business models management

Response 2: Agree with the proposal. However, authors did not consider this in this SLR, and identified this as a research limitation. Authors suggest this as one of the area that need to be explored in the future study in the field of project management maturity.

Comment 3. It is enough your practical approach (section 2) in order to sustain the two research mentioned questions 

Response 3: Our practical approach strictly follow established SLR protocol, and follow previous SLR articles. We cited several previous SLR articles and adapts their approach. Authors provide clarification in Section 2.

Comment 4. At conclusions section must be extensively exposed a critical analyze related to the topic of title, not just enumeration of main findings of the 3rd section.

Response 4: We added more critical analysis in Conclusion section.

Comment 5. it is necessary to be developed a dedicated paragraph of limitations of research, otherwise it seems to be a little beat disrupted your approach.

Response 5: Added dedicated paragraph for limitation

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for quite an interesting paper that addresses I suspect an important topic. The problem is at the moment is that the SLR importance is not established. Why is it important and what is the 'so what' factor. Merely talking about different maturity levels and that low use of these leads to poor performance doesn't really say much.

I would like the authors to redefine the research problem? Exactly what is it and why is it important? Further, authors should clearly state the research gaps and relate these to the importance of the study. Elsewhere in the discussions and conclusions, I can't figure out what is novel about this study? Also, how does it contribute to existing theory? Extend theory? Broaden theory? This unfortunately does not come across in the study.

Moreover, please develop a table that show different maturity model approaches and relevant theory that supports these. Perhaps also in the discussions section, another table might address the major themes that you have found, how the research questions relate to these, and how another column showing how existing theory is extended, broadened or challenged.

Best wishes with the paper changes. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you and appreciate your comments and suggestion to improve this manuscript. 

Please see the attachment

 

thank you 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript attempts to determine the organizational facets that influence project management maturity implementation in the organizations. A literature review is conducted using 23 articles in the area of project management maturity, and content analysis is performed for extracting the main constituting themes. The manuscript tackles a noteworthy problem, and it has some contributions to the exiting body of knowledge. However, I have some concerns and recommend the authors to address them before further consideration.  Comments are given below:

 

• The link between the manuscript and the concept of SUSTAINABIITY is not clear. I recommend the authors to provide more explanations about this matter.
• Introduction does not place the research in the body of existing knowledge. It needs more argument to clarify why conducting a systematic literature review is necessary, and why it should be carried out. In addition, main contributions of the manuscript need to be described clearly in the Introduction section.
• As well as extracting the key themes of a research area, systematic literature review is done to show what areas have been researched and what areas need more attention of scholars. However, such expectation is not fulfilled in the manuscript, and I strongly propose the authors to incorporate relevant arguments about the areas and subjects which require to be deeply considered.
• Implications of the manuscript is short (section 5) and vague. More description is required to elucidate the implications and findings of the manuscript.
• Why SCOPUS and ProQuest are regarded as the main databases? Explaining the reasons for selecting these databases and excluding the others (e.g., JCR) is recommended.
• It is indicated in section 3.3 that “Most of the qualitative studies were also of high quality, demonstrating a clear link between the research methods and questions, data collection methods, data representation, and data interpretation.” How the high quality of the qualitative studies has been confirmed?
• It is not clear how table 4 has been obtained. Although the next sections help the readers to find out more about the theme extraction process and the reviewed literature, I recommend the authors to offer complementary descriptions at the beginning of section 3.5 to show the way the themes have been acquired.
• Why the time window from 2011 to 2021 has been selected, and years before 2011 have been disregarded?
• Why the name of the lead author has been indicated in section 2.7?
• How the appropriateness of the sub-themes has been determined by the authors (OTS and HM) in section 2.8?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you and appreciate your valuable comments and suggestion for our improvement. The authors have tried our best to provide you with as much information to fill up the gaps. We believe our responses are suffice and meet your expectation. 

Please see the attachment.

Best regards

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

My recommendations were implemented. There are not other observations from my point of view. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you and appreciate your acceptance. 

 

best regards 

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your efforts to improve this manuscript. There are still many issues however even while some things have improved as follows:

1. Research questions. Please place in the headings 'Research Questions'. Please also place in the Introduction section in or near the first paragraph the aims of the study;
2. Results: Take table 4 out of here and place in a new heading titled 'Discussions' then place table 4 about half way down section 4 and explain its various sections in the text.
3. However, by merely saying you are broadening theory is not useful. How are you broadening theory in those individual areas e.g. motivation, culture, stakeholder differences and priorities, mature organization structure, and so on. In your review, you may have unearthed different features of for example culture (and others) where PMM has been insufficient. So what were these features, and in what way(s) do your findings extend or broaden these??
4. Separate Table 4 into two tables say 4.1 and 4.2 to enable you to place in more detail about how your findings broaden or extend existing theory. However, a table is an indicator only so therefore, talk to the table in the text.
5. You should decide the best place to place in the Discussion section. The final conclusion section only needs to be a paragraph. Please see similar papers in Sustainability to see how scholars write up the first couple of paragraphs. 
6. Some of your insertions are not grammatically correct. Please use an English language device or person to completely edit the paper before resubmitting.
7. Once done, please also place in a table of responses to the reviewer noting how you have addressed each reviewer comment. Thank you. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you and appreciate your comments. The improvement has been made accordingly. 

 

Please see the attachment. 

 

best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors did a great job and addressed all my comments. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you and appreciate your acceptance.

best regards

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the next draft of the paper. However, before the paper can be accepted, it needs to be grammatically correct plus other issues still remaining:

1. Please fix all grammatical errors in the paper
2. There are references to tables in the main section of the paper. Please place in the tables that appear in the text but do not either follow on the same page or the next page?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you, and we appreciate your suggestion to improve this paper. 

The authors believe your comments are fully addressed in this updated version. We hope our response suffice. 

Please see the attachment.

 

Best regards

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf