The Organizational Learning Role in Construction Organizations Resilience during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate your efforts in the work put into the paper concerning the organizational learning role in construction organizations resilience during covid-19 pandemic.

To enhance the quality of the study, the authors must do a major revision of their research and pay attention to several important issues:

-        The introduction should clearly state the research question(s) or the research objective(s) that the authors present for this paper.

-        There is no Literature review section that could bring support to the information provided in the paper. From what the authors presented, there is a rather long Introduction section and no Literature review.

-        The most important issue relates to the contributions of this paper. The entire article suggests a compilation of information from other studies and some conducted interviews which are not described using the proper methodology for a qualitative study using interviews. What do the authors want to bring new to the topic and how do they manage this in the end?

-        I recommend a different section to be included in the paper: “Findings”, where authors can present and detail the findings and importance of the study results.

-        The “Conclusions” part must be developed more in order to summarize the main findings of the research, how the research objectives are met through this study and to whom are the results addressed.

-        Authors need to explain about limitations and future research directions as well in revised draft.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article develops an interesting contribution to the analysis of COVID19 organizational changes to project based companies.

The research process is well designed and supports main findings of the study.

A more in depth literature based analysis of weaknesses and threats aspects would be required on the discussion for an adequate support of the SWOT results conclusions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

General comments

By using a SWOT analysis, the article deals with the role of Organizational Learning in implementing the resilience of construction companies during the pandemic and post-pandemic period.

The first part of the article is an introduction to the subjects of Organizational Learning, SWOT analysis, and COVID-19 pandemic.

The central and fundamental part of the article is based on the application of the SWOT analysis to the information deduced from structured interviews about the implementation of OL in the construction companies, carried out by the authors before the pandemic period involving some expert operators in the sector.

The main weakness of the article lies in the fact that – using data from interviews prior to the pandemic – it cannot exploit the experience accumulated by operators during the crisis period.

Other than that, the article is well structured and written, as well as easy to read, and provides an interesting insight into the issue at hand.

The authors use the reference number as a part of the text (usually the subject of a sentence), this makes some paragraphs of the article difficult to read. In these cases, the authors should report in the text the names of reference’s authors to make the article more clear.

 

Other comments and misspelling

 

Line    Notes for the author

 

101     The authors write: «COVID-19 disease is…». Since the word “COVID” is an acronym for “COrona VIrus Disease”, the word disease should be deleted from the sentence.

538      Reference 36 is incomplete.

546      Reference 40 is incomplete.

550      Reference 42 is incomplete.

559      Reference 46 is incomplete and incorrect: part of the title is missing (“State-by-state”) and part is misspelled («complitation» instead of “compilation”).

560       Reference 47 is incomplete.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors took into consideration the suggestions and improved their work.