Towards successful business process improvement – An extension of change acceleration process model

Maha Syed Ibrahim; Aamer Hanif; Faheem Qaisar Jamal; Ali Ahsan

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0225669

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 16, 2019
25 Aug 2019 Decision Letter - Amira M. Idrees, Editor PONE-D-19-20062 Ensuring Business Process Improvement Success- An Extension of Change Acceleration Process Model PLOS ONE Dear Authors, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Although the reviewers had a negative response to your article, however, you have a second chance for your article. the article will be revised after modification and this will be the final chance. so, I suggest you carefully follow the reviewers comments and respond in details for each one. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by 23 November 2019. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Amira M. Idrees, Associate Professor Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, please provide a copy of the questionnaire you developed as part of this study in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information, unless it is under copyright, in which case, please provide a reference to the previous publication. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: NO-The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. a) Please provide an amended Funding Statement that declares all the funding or sources of support received during this specific study (whether external or internal to your organization) as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. b) Please state what role the funders took in the study. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funder. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Introduction and Literature review need to be improved. The flow and structure of the paper is not well arranged. Research design is prone to biases. Based on the analysis, stating that the proposed model "ensure" BPI success is an extreme statement. The novelty of this work is not clear. (Must be address in the discussion section) The extended CAP model is not clearly defined. How is the proposed model better than existing methods? Figures used are not clear. (instead of copy pasting images from the web, i suggest to duplicate it) Outdated references must be updated. Reviewer #2: Please refer to the attached report (document entitled 'PLOS ONE reviewer report PONE-D-19-20062') for the details of the report on this paper. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PLOS ONE reviewer report PONE-D-19-20062.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225669.r001
Revision 1
24 Oct 2019 Author Response Responses have been uploaded in a separate file, and also below: Response to reviewers Concern1 Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming Response The authors have updated the style requirements along with file names Concern2 Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses Response The survey questionnaires have been provided as supporting files Concern3 The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. Response The data files have been provided in supporting files Concern4 While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. Response Figure requirements have been checked. Concern5 A dedicated (can also be brief if needed) section on the Pakistan telecommunication sector would also be good for readers to better appreciate the topic Response The required section has been included in the manuscript in Page 2 as a subheading for introduction. Concern6 Some brief background of the respondents may be good – e.g., age, position in organization. Ideally, these managers should be similar in terms of their job designation/title/position otherwise the responses collected may suffer from some position bias? Response The brief background and demographics have been added under the sub-heading sample for both Delphi and EFA Concern7 Did the authors consider adding any new CSFs? Why not? It seems that all the CSFs in the exhaustive list were sourced from other literatures. Did the questionnaire design involve any open-ended sections to elicit new information (potentially new CSF?)? Response Delphi analysis invites participants to include any CSF they deem significant, in Round 1. in this case no additional CSF was suggested by the Panel. Concern8 Research design is prone to biases. Response This point has been addresses in the section on “sampling and use of experts of Delphi” with a reference to literature. Concern9 Based on the analysis, stating that the proposed model "ensure" BPI success is an extreme statement. Response The specified statement has been changed and also the paper title has been modified to address this extreme statement. Concern10 Outdated references must be updated. Response The authors have updated the references and some new references have been added. Concern11 Where’s Appendix B? Response Reference to Appendix B was made by mistake and has been fixed. Concern12 Some sort of alignment issue in column 1 in Table IV? Response All the tables have been re-aligned and updated Concern13 Figures used are not clear. (instead of copy pasting images from the web, i suggest to duplicate it) Response All figures have been recreated. Concern14 The authors should provide all the questionnaires in the Appendix (e.g., the Delphi questionnaires, the EFA questionnaire etc..). Response The questionnaires have been added in Appendix B Concern15 In page 18 – perhaps a bit more explanation on why (and what does it mean) and the implications of customer focus having a negative factor loading Response The implication of negative factor loading has been discussed in the paper by explaining it in the discussion section of the paper. Concern16 Since there are many use of acronyms, the authors would be well-advised to provide the full term when the item appears for the first time – e.g., in page 2 first line of the second paragraph, what does GE stands for? Response GE stands for General Electric. All the acronyms have been updated. Concern17 While the paper is fairly well-written, it is not without its typos/grammatical issues and they are quite a few throughout the paper. Also, some parts appears to be a little sloppy (e.g., the word Figure does not need to be bolded, some in-text referencing and reporting of the sources of the figures [in the case of Fig 4 in page 4] not correct, etc..), spacing in between paragraphs a little neglected, etc… so some editorial improvements are necessary. In fact, I think it would be good to have the paper proofread (if possible) before further submission(s). Response The paper has been proofread and updated accordingly. Concern18 I am not sure if this is a concern but perhaps the authors can offer a more convincing discussion as to why the proposed extended model is so crucial, specifically to the telco industry – the explanation in the last paragraph of page 18 and first paragraph in page 19 offers very general discussions on the model and its applications. Response The discussion has been improved to be clearer and convincing. A subsection “Utility of extended model” has been added to the paper. Concern19 One may expect the discussions to be more industry specific or at the very least offer some insights as to how the model would contribute to making BPI projects more successful in the context of the telco sector. Response The utility of extended model in telecom sector has been highlighted by adding an exclusive sub-section in the paper. Concern20 The novelty of this work is not clear. (Must be address in the discussion section) Response A subsection explaining the novelty of this work has been added. Concern21 The extended CAP model is not clearly defined. How is the proposed model better than existing methods? Response The rationale behind extended model is explained in subsection “Extension of CAP model” Concern22 In page 7 (under Round 2 Ranking, Results & Analysis), the respondents were divided into 2 groups, i.e., 'Leadership' and 'Management'. How did the authors decide on the allocation of which respondent to which group? Also, how many were placed under Leadership and how many, Management? Response Director level and above have been grouped together as Leadership. Managers and senior managers have been grouped as 'Management' Concern23 In page 8 (under Round 3 Ranking, Results & Analysis), how many respondents were there? Response 22 respondents, also reflected in the paper. Concern24 In page 6, the number of respondents was 26 and 22 in the two rounds respectively – are these sufficient? The authors claimed that a previous literature indicated that the size may vary from 4 to 3000 --- does this suggests that the number of respondents in this paper is on the low side? Just a suggestion, perhaps to cite a previous work that has a sample size around this amount (e.g., anything around 30 respondents or less)? Response Yes the number of respondents is 22 which is applicable in this case. Respondents less than 15 have also been used in similar studies. Same has been reflected in the paper. Concern25 Introduction and Literature review need to be improved. The flow and structure of the paper is not well arranged. Response The manuscript has been revised and updated with improved structure. Concern26 A section (or sub-section) devoted to BPI after the introduction section would improve the flow of the paper and also provide some general and basic insights to the use of BPI – this would be especially useful (easier) for general readers (non-specialists in the area). Response The manuscript has been revised and a few lines devoted to BPI have been added Concern27 The section on Change Accelerated Process Analysis should come after the proposed section on BPI and not after the Literature Review – this to improve the flow of the paper. Response The proposed changes have been made Concern28 The literature review needs to be more critical and better informed – a little too brief given that it is less than a page long. Response The literature review has been revised Concern29 The last paragraph in page 3 should not be part of the literature review – move this to the section on Research Design. Response The proposed changes have been made in the paper. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225669.r002
11 Nov 2019 Decision Letter - Amira M. Idrees, Editor Towards successful business process improvement – An extension of change acceleration process model PONE-D-19-20062R1 Dear Author, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication. Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. With kind regards, Amira M. Idrees, Associate Professor Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225669.r003
Formally Accepted
14 Nov 2019 Acceptance Letter - Amira M. Idrees, Editor PONE-D-19-20062R1 Towards successful business process improvement – An extension of change acceleration process model Dear Dr. Syed Ibrahim: I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE. With kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Prof. Amira M. Idrees Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225669.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .