PONE-D-20-27419

IMPACT OF AGILE MANAGEMENT ON PROJECT PERFORMANCE: EVIDENCE FROM I.T SECTOR OF PAKISTAN

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.

 Please see comments below.

Please submit your revised manuscript by due 10.12.2020. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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.

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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dejan Dragan, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The article was reviewed by two reviewers. They both require a major revision. Therefore, it is suggested that the authors strictly follow the instructions and comments of the reviewers.

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. 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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://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, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

 [The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.].

At this time, please address the following queries:

1. Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.
2. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”
3. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.
4. If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

5. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

6. Please include a copy of Tables 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13 and 4.14 which you refer to in your text on pages 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21 and 22.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: Yes

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: The authors present an interesting and thorough analysis of how Agile Management plays a key role in the execution of IT projects. The authors have consulted numerous bibliographic sources. From the previous studies the authors have presented 6 hypotheses that they have tested by analyzing the information received in the surveys.

A representative sampling of the population to be studied has been made. A previous analysis of the reliability of the data has been made before starting the battery of tests that would allow testing the hypotheses. The authors have been very conscientious and have carried out numerous statistical tests trying to validate or reject the hypotheses presented.

According to the tests they have selected and developed, they accept the 6 hypotheses put forward, from which they develop the discussion. Some of the hypotheses may seem that they could be answered from a logical approach, however, it seems to me very appropriate and necessary that the authors have been able to give it a scientific support.

On the other hand, they recognize and detail the limitations of the study and even draw some conclusions. This seems to me very relevant, since in the conclusions they encourage the virtues of this approach and encourage third parties to apply them in the development of their projects. Therefore, it shows the confidence of the authors in their analysis and results. It is important, because in this case they have the capacity to experiment in the future. It would be very interesting if, in a few years, from the acceptance of the results of this study, the results of real experiences could be presented.

Taking into account that the concept has been used in the literature since 1991, I have missed in the discussion some concrete examples of projects that have been developed under this framework, their results, which could support the accepted hypotheses.

There are several aspects, especially structural, that do not convince me. Although the journal gives freedom to rename the sections, the structure of this publication is not clear to me.

Regarding question 3 of this questionnaire (Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?), I suppose that, as usual in PlosOne, the results of the surveys will be available to the scientific community.

General

According to the rules of the magazine, up to three hierarchical levels can be reached in the headings. Authors sometimes go as high as a four. This is the case in STATISTICAL RESULTS & ANALYSIS (1), Structural Equation Modeling (2), SEM (Stage 1) (3) and Instrument's Reliability (4)

Although the authors' English is correct, I think they could use an external review to detect small errors and propose some grammatical changes.

LITERATURE REVIEW

After the introduction, there is a section that is Literature Review, with several sections, in which there are mixed elements that could fit both in the introduction, and in results and discussion. The introduction is, based on the existing literature, the space to assess what has been done so far and draw the main lines of the work presented. I think the authors could pass these descriptive parts to a longer introduction divided into several sections, ending with the presentation of the hypotheses.

Similarly, there are fragments that may be more appropriate in the discussion. Table 1 is not clear whether it is own production (better in results) or taken from other authors.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The methodology is fragmented as in the following section (STATISTICAL RESULTS & ANALYSIS), the results of each test are presented with its methodology.

STATISTICAL RESULTS & ANALYSIS

The first paragraph is methodology.

Demographical Classification

The text of this section is the same as that presented in table 2. I recommend leaving the table and limiting the text to summarize the relevant aspects for the study.

It is necessary for the authors to clarify the headings to make it easier to follow the sections (this can be applied to the whole document).

There is no correspondence between the number of the tables in the text and the actual number of each table.

In general, I miss a descriptive text in the legend of the tables, beyond naming the test performed.

DISCUSSION

The authors have made a great statistical effort to support each of the hypotheses. I think it would be relevant to indicate which tests they have used to validate each of the hypotheses.

As I commented earlier, I believe that if the authors could identify real cases that would allow them to exemplify the hypotheses, they could strengthen their results. Similarly, I believe that, taking into account that there are 70 bibliographic references, it seems little to me that they only use 10 for discussion.

Reviewer #2: 1. The three main criteria for this manuscript are (a) quality and content of the research/review; (b) Quality, brevity and clarity of presentation; (c) Significance, relevance and timeliness of the topic. In addition, this title is (i) coverage of the literature/significant developments in the field or clarity of discussion within an emerging topic; (ii) originality, new perspectives or insights; (iii) international interest; and (iv) relevance for governance, policy or practical perspectives relevant to the focus of this manuscript. However, this study is lacking the most important criteria. Hence, I think the author needs to consider these criteria before your submission.

2 To be legible, the whole text must be completely edited with the help of a native English editor to polish your writing to prevent redundancies, grammatical errors and punctuation problems.

3. Please underscore the scientific value-added of your paper in your abstract and introduction.

4. Introduction should be clearly stated research questions and targets first. Then answer several questions: Why is the topic important (or why do you study on it)? What are the research questions? What has been studied? What are your contributions? Why is to propose this particular method? The outline of the paper can also be included. Please build upon the great work we have published on these subjects.

5. The major defect of this study is the debate or Argument is not clear stated in the introduction session. Hence, the contribution is weak in this manuscript. I would suggest the author to enhance your theoretical discussion and arrives your debate or argument.

6. The literature review is necessary for you to clarify the “contribution” of your study. In current form, there is none literature to support your study. The author failed to present the study debates and failed to discuss the debates. In general, the author should present a specific debate for your study.

7. In the Introduction and Literature review, the author conducts detailed literature discussions on agile management, but it would be better if the literature can be added in the last five years.

8. Please make sure your conclusions' section underscores the scientific value-added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results, as indicated previously. Please revise your conclusion part in more detail. Basically, you should enhance your contributions, limitations, underscore the scientific value-added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results and future study in this session.

**********

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: Yes: Dr. Juan Jesús Bellido López

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.]

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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

IMPACT OF AGILE MANAGEMENT ON PROJECT PERFORMANCE: EVIDENCE FROM I.T SECTOR OF PAKISTAN

PONE-D-20-27419R1

Dear Authors,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- 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.

Kind regards,

Dejan Dragan, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

All the reviewers' comments have been adequately addressed. Accordingly, the acceptance of the paper is recommended.

Reviewers' comments: