PONE-D-24-08102The Role of PMO Practices in the Implementation of Strategic Plans in Project-Based OrganisationsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Shahzad,

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 Jun 06 2024 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,

Kashif Ali, PH.D

Academic Editor

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. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/BIJ-03-2018-0058/full/html

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

Additional Editor Comments:

• Please address all the comments in detail. 

[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

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

Reviewer #4: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 manuscript titled "The Role of PMO Practices in the Implementation of Strategic Plans in Project Based Organisations" has been critically reviewed. I have some minor suggestions that can enhance the manuscript. It presents a thorough investigation into the impact of Project Management Office (PMO) roles on strategic plan implementation within project-based organizations. I have so many major mistake in this manuscript. It not look like a research paper, because the authors didn’t follow the proper scholarly write-up format. To further enhance the quality and impact of this research work, I have the following comments and suggestions:

Title: The title of paper is very confusing. No need to use Abbreviation in the title.

Abstract: Abstract doesn’t contain relevant information but it contain a lot of extra information which should not be a part of paper abstract.

Clarify the Research Gap: The introduction clearly identifies a gap in the existing literature regarding the strategic role of PMOs. To strengthen this further, it would be beneficial to explicitly state how your study's findings fill this gap and what unique contributions your research makes to the field.

Expand Literature Review: While the literature review is comprehensive, incorporating recent studies could enrich the context. Highlighting studies conducted after 2020 might provide a more current understanding of PMO roles and their evolution in response to emerging project management challenges.

Methodology Detailing: The methodology section is well-structured, but adding more details about the survey design and statistical analysis techniques (beyond regression analysis) could enhance reproducibility and the rigor of your study. Discussing the rationale for choosing the specific quantitative methods and any limitations they present would also be valuable.

Sample: Your sample is robust and geographically diverse, which strengthens the study. However, exploring the implications of PMO practices across different industries or sectors more explicitly could provide deeper insights into how context influences PMO effectiveness in strategic plan implementation.

In-depth Analysis of Non-significant Roles: The results section provides a clear distinction between significant and non-significant PMO roles. An in-depth discussion on why certain roles (e.g., Organisational Learning Promotion) were found to be non-significant and the potential implications for practice could offer additional value to readers.

Practical Implications: The discussion on practical implications is insightful but could be expanded. Providing specific recommendations for project managers and PMO leaders on how to apply your findings in their organizational contexts would make the research more actionable.

Future Research Directions: While the conclusion mentions the potential for future research, outlining specific questions or areas of investigation that emerged from your findings could guide subsequent studies and encourage further exploration into PMO roles and strategic planning.

Theoretical Contributions: Elaborate more on how your findings contribute to or challenge existing theories within project management and strategic planning literature. This would enhance the theoretical significance of your study.

Interdisciplinary Insights: Considering the interdisciplinary nature of PMOs, drawing connections to related fields such as organizational behavior, information systems, and strategic management could enrich the discussion and appeal to a broader audience.

Enhance Visuals and Tables: The figures and tables are informative but ensuring they are as clear and concise as possible will help readers digest the information more effectively. Consider revising to focus on key findings and using supplementary materials for additional details.

Implementing these suggestions could enhance the clarity, depth, and impact of your research, making a valuable contribution to the understanding of PMO roles in strategic plan implementation within project-based organizations.

Reviewer #2: Introduction

• Some points are repeated across different paragraphs, such as the discussion on the challenges faced by project-based organizations and the role of PMO. This repetition can make the text redundant and less engaging.

• Certain statements are vague and could benefit from more specific examples or evidence. For instance, phrases like "unfavourable challenges" and "effective approaches and tools" lack specificity and clarity.

Background

• Some sentences are lengthy and could be simplified for better clarity and readability. For example, the sentence starting with "Many research studies stated..." could be broken down into smaller, clearer sentences.

• Could you please correct the usage of 'PMO' as an abbreviation in two instances: firstly, in the introduction and secondly, in the section discussing the importance of PMO for an organization? Additionally, on line 152, ensure that 'project management office' is spelled out in full, with its abbreviation included. Correct and put abbreviation.

• On page 10, line 216, tackled and gained on" might be more effectively expressed as "addressed and acquired."

• Utilize Strategic human resource management practitioners’ emotional intelligence and affective organizational commitment in higher education institutions in Georgia during post-COVID-19(2023) to enhance your discussion on strategic management. It offers valuable insights on Conceptualization of SM strengthening your argument regarding strategic management.

methodology

• It would be beneficial to provide some insight into the process of composing the questionnaire contents to demonstrate the thoroughness of the methodology.

Other suggestions:

• This study lacks the exploration of both theoretical and practical implications. Please add.

• Please incorporate considerations of limitations and suggest avenues for further research.

Reviewer #3: Dear authors! I have read the manuscript of your article and, while assessing the work done as a whole positively, I have a number of comments:

1. The manuscript is not structured in accordance with the requirements of the PLOS ONE journal. The introduction does not provide a detailed review of the literature and research history on the role of the project management office (PMO). Other parts of the manuscript provide references that were used for the study and the list of references is extensive. A full literature review is required in the introduction.

2. A similar situation has arisen with the description of the methodology and research methods. These should be described in detail in a separate section.

3. When indicating the affiliation of the authors, it is also required to indicate the department, city, and country.

4. The authors conducted a survey among 19 design organizations. However, the justification for the selection of these organizations is very succinct: “The organizations were selected on the basis of their long-term involvement in the activities of the PMO in the UAE.” It is necessary to explain the choice of organizations in more detail, because this influences the formation of further samples.

5. Multiple regression analysis (MRA) was used, I would like to see the resulting regression equations with the described variables, and it is also worth writing the tests that the authors conducted to confirm the quality of the model.

Reviewer #4: Three keywords are really few. You could add two more keywords. Also try to arrange the references in alphabetical order. This will make your work professional. In other words the work is ok but needs small revision

**********

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: Yes: Roya Anvari

Reviewer #3: Yes: Julia Kolesnikova

Reviewer #4: Yes: Joseph Yaw Dawson

**********

[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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-08102.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewers comments.docx

The Role of Project Management Office in the Implementation of Strategic Plans in Project-Based Organisations

PONE-D-24-08102R1

Dear Dr. Shahzad,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Kashif Ali, PH.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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

Reviewer #4: 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: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #4: 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: All comments answered by the authors

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) (Limit 100 to 20000 Characters)

Reviewer #4: The authors have made necessary changes to the article though not all the concerns were done. In any case they have improved the work

**********

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

Reviewer #4: Yes: Joseph Yaw Dawson

**********