PONE-D-22-12656Competitive Advantages of Organizational Project Management Maturity: A Quantitative Descriptive Study in AustraliaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. clinciu,

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 note that we have only been able to secure a single reviewer to assess your manuscript. We are issuing a decision on your manuscript at this point to prevent further delays in the evaluation of your manuscript. Please be aware that the editor who handles your revised manuscript might find it necessary to invite additional reviewers to assess this work once the revised manuscript is submitted. However, we will aim to proceed on the basis of this single review if possible. The reviewer has identified several opportunities to clarify aspects of the study design and to provide additional contextualisation. Please respond carefully to each of the points they have raised when preparing your revisions.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 08 2022 11:59PM. 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jamie Males

Editorial Office

PLOS ONE

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"No funding was received for this study"

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) 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. 

b) 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.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) 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

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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: Formal comments:

1. There is not clear which of the resources (Itim Interantiona and Itim International, 2010) on page 15 and in References is in right form (I suppose the second one). It is necessary to correct it.

Content comments:

1. Introduction – 1st paragraph - project management is discipline used not only in “… information technology projects, building projects, new automotive products, airplanes, or weapons systems ...”. I recommend to modify it.

2. Introduction – 2nd paragraph – The skills of project managers could be certified. The mentioned certification from Australia is regional certification, I recommend to mention certifications used worldwide, not only Project Management Institute certification, but also PRINCE2 and International Project Management Association standards certifications.

3. Results – it will be useful to present in the article also description of answers of respondents. If they full filled self-assessment P3M3 questions it could be possible to present what is the level of project management maturity of respondent’s organizations. This information could give the overview about the maturity of project management. It could be important information, in case the maturity is mainly on low level (P3M3 has got 5 levels – from the lowest “awareness of process” to the highest “optimized process”) it could be the reason of the final statement: „organizational project management maturity has no effect on competitive advantages “. There would be very interesting the comparison of high-level project maturity organizations and low-level project maturity organizations – is there for both groups still the result same, or the level of project maturity could impact the relationship between organizational project management maturity and competitive advantages?

4. References – there is possible to find many references but mainly to methodology of the research, to the main topic – project management maturity and competitive advantages – is not presented sufficient literature review.

5. Supplementary material – there is presented the Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3®) self-assessment, but this project management maturity model is described in the literature, so it is sufficient just to offer to the readers the link to description of this model. The questions 10-20 are presented two times – in table and in supplementary material, it is redundant.

Summary:

Authors would like to examined the effects of organizational project management maturity on competitive advantages. The methodology, problem statement and design of the analysis are specified very clearly and deeply. But the survey is very limited by insufficient literature review. The methodology and specification of research are based on recommendation from literature, but there is not presented the theoretical background of the project management maturity and competitive advantages.

The project management maturity is possible to measure by project management maturity models. There are, based on the literature review, available more than 50 project management maturity models. Why the P3M3 by Axelos based on PRINCE2 methodology has been used for the analysis? Is this methodology preferred in Australia? There are other models, like OPM3 (based on Project Management Institute standard), IPMA Delta (based on International Project Management Association standards), Kerner Project Management Maturity Model (by Kezner, 2019, 2005), Project Management Solutions´ Project Management Maturity Model (by Crawford, 2021), Project Management Process Maturity by Kwak and Ibbs (2002). Project FRAMEWORKTM Project Management Maturity Model (by Iqbal 2016), all based on PMI standard and many others.

Why the model P3M3 has been chosen? There are available other self-assessment models. Is it based on the statement, that PRINCE2 standard is the most preferable in Australia? If not, there is not presented the relevant explanation the P3M3 model has been chosen for this survey.

It is same with the competitive advantages, the second part of the survey is focused on project managers´ attitude to relationship of project management maturity and competitive advantages, but there is not literature review, which would specify in detail how the competitive advantages could be specified. There is not mentioned if these relationships has been analysed before in some other studies, or if they are focused just on comparison of success and project management maturity.

International Project Management Association. (2016). Reference model for IPMA Delta. http://www.ipma.world/certification/certify-organisations/delta-reference-model/

Iqbal, S. (2016). Organizational Maturity – Managing Programs Better. In. "Program Management: A Life Cycle Approach", CRC Press, edited by Ginger Levin 584 pp.

Kerzner, H. (2019). Using the Project Management Maturity Model, Third Edition: Strategic Planning for Project Management. John Wiley &Sons, Inc., doi: 10.1002/9781119559078.

Kerzner, H. (2005). Using the project management maturity model. Hobokon, New Jersey: John Wiley& Sons.

Kwak, Y. H.; Ibbs, C. W. (2002). Project management process maturity (PM)2 model. Journal of Management in Engineering, 18, 150-155.

Project Management Institute (2003). Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3). 1. ed. Newton Square: PMI, 195 pp. doi: 10.1201/9781420028942.axa

Crawford, J. K. (2021). Project Management Maturity Model (PM Solution Research). 4. ed., Auerbach Publications, 234 pp.

**********

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: Jana Kostalova

**********

[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.

PONE-D-22-12656R1Competitive Advantages of Organizational Project Management Maturity: A Quantitative Descriptive Study in AustraliaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. clinciu,

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 submit your revised manuscript by Feb 23 2023 11:59PM. 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jana Košťálová, Ph.D.

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Authors accepted most of the comments of reviewer. The most import is including of PRINCE2 standard and the overview of project management maturity measured by P3M3 of respondents, which gives relevant overview on which level of project management in these organizations is and how relevant are their answers in questionnaire survey.

The is not extended very much the literature review, but there is appendix A, where the available maturity models are included.

The most important parts are improved, but there are still some formal and content comments:

Formal comments:

1. There is not the title of Table 1, please include it.

Content comments:

1. Introduction – 1st paragraph - project management is discipline used not only in “… information technology projects, building projects, new automotive products, airplanes, or weapons systems ...”. I recommend to modify it.

Insufficient formulation, I recommend to modify it in this way: … project management is used much widely i.e. IT projects, building projects….. and many other areas.

2. Introduction – 2nd paragraph – The skills of project managers could be certified. The mentioned certification from Australia is regional certification, I recommend to mention certifications used worldwide, not only Project Management Institute certification, but also PRINCE2 and International Project Management Association standards certifications.

The text is intended for readers across the world. So, the overview in the introduction has to reflect the situation across the world, not only in Australia. Generally, across the world PMI, PRINCE2 and IPMA international project management standards and certifications for project managers skills are used (despite the fact that IPMA does not have its branch in Australia). I recommend to mention in the Introduction also this third standard, to offer general independent overview of project management standards.

3. Appendix A – the title of the Appendix is not accurate. This is not a list of project management maturity models. There are included general project management maturity models (like Building Architecture Maturity Model, Capability Maturity Model Integration for Development, Capability Maturity Model Integration for Acquisition, Corrective Maintenance Maturity Model or EFQM Excellence Model). There are general management methods (like Balance Scorecard). Some of these models has been used for development of project management maturity model (like EFQM Excellence Model or CMMI model). These models and method are usable for evaluation of management maturity generally, not exactly for project management maturity.

There are mentioned international project management standards (like International Project Management Association and its ICB standard), but it is not project management maturity model. Based on this standard is available Reference model IPMA Delta (IPMA, 2016). Unfortunately, the IPMA Delta project management maturity model is not included in the list.

There is only 15 real project management maturity models int the appendix. It is necessary to specify it precisely. I recommend to modify table – stay there only real project management maturity models or divide it into two parts – general maturity models and methods and project management maturity models.

International Project Management Association. (2016). Reference model for IPMA Delta. http://www.ipma.world/certification/certify-organisations/delta-reference-model/

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[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.

PONE-D-22-12656R2Competitive Advantages of Organizational Project Management Maturity: A Quantitative Descriptive Study in AustraliaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. clinciu,

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 submit your revised manuscript by Apr 02 2023 11:59PM. 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jana Košťálová, Ph.D.

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

********** 

2. 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 #2: Partly

********** 

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

4. 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 #2: No

********** 

5. 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 #2: Yes

********** 

6. 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 #2: - There is not a cross reference No. 4 to the author name.

- There are some typing errors (e.g. “…Dorouin & Jugdev, 2014….. ”; correct is “…Drouin & Jugdev, 2014….. ”; – see Introduction, second paragraph).

- I recommend to add the chapter Theoretical Background (Literature Review) which evaluates the current state of the research topic on an international scale. – I recommend move the last paragraph from the Introduction chapter to this chapter and further expanding this chapter with other literary sources especially from the Web of Science or Scopus databases not older than 5 years.

- I recommend more in detail describe the methodology (i.e. the used statistical methods) which help to achieve the defined research aim.

********** 

7. 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 #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.

Competitive Advantages of Organizational Project Management Maturity: A Quantitative Descriptive Study in Australia

PONE-D-22-12656R3

Dear Dr. clinciu,

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,

Jana Košťálová, Ph.D.

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear authors,

thank you for accepting of the requirements and correction of the text based on them.

Best Regards

Guest Editor

Reviewers' comments: