Review Reports - Achieving Competitive Sustainable Advantages (CSAs) by Applying a Heuristic-Collaborative Risk Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to study the interesting article. The article needs to be edited to make it suitable for publication. Detailed comments and suggestions are made below.

Abstract: The abstract is too long and seems largely theoretical. It needs to be adapted and supplemented with information on the methods used.
Introduction and Literature Review forms a relatively large part of the article. The importance of case studies in the given issue is missing here. At the end of this section, the authors should complete the aim of the work and highlight the main conclusions
Incorporation process of an organizational risk-model into a business intelligence architecture - it would be appropriate to supplement the scheme of the proposed procedure, which would be clearer.
Case Study- organization in case study is relatively small, it is questionable whether the results can be considered completely relevant. It is also not clear the choice of organization or the way the authors cooperate with the organization. This study also misses the life cycle of the project. There is a need to make better use of the potential of the case study and to point out its limitations.
Conclusions, implications, and further developments: I recommend splitting this section into discussion and conclusion for the sake of clarity.
The main chapters are not completely clear, which worsens the overall clarity of the article. I recommend the authors to create the main sections according to the Instructions for Authors. I recommend for clarity:

Introduction
Literature Review
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusions

There is also no reference to some figures (Fig. 1,3,4,6) and tab 1. If the authors used other sources in their creation, it is appropriate to show them.

I believe that these comments will allow the authors to improve the level of the article.

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity to study the interesting article. The article needs to be edited to make it suitable for publication. Detailed comments and suggestions are made below.

Thank you very much in the name of all the authors of the submitted manuscript. We took into consideration all the suggestions given and concluded that it really increased the overall quality of the work! In addition, we improved all the Figure´s quality of the article. All changes are marked in red in the new version of the manuscript.

Abstract: The abstract is too long and seems largely theoretical. It needs to be adapted and supplemented with information on the methods used.

Thank you very much for this point. This point is extremely important because it helped to better structure the main ideas we want to illustrate across the whole article. The abstract was rewritten taken into consideration the suggestion you gave.

Introduction and Literature Review forms a relatively large part of the article. The importance of case studies in the given issue is missing here. At the end of this section, the authors should complete the aim of the work and highlight the main conclusions

Thank you very much for this point. Both the Literature and the Introduction were rewritten taking into consideration the suggestion you gave.

Incorporation process of an organizational risk-model into a business intelligence architecture - it would be appropriate to supplement the scheme of the proposed procedure, which would be clearer.

Thank you very much for this point. To better understand the steps that are required in order to efficiently implement the overall process (incorporation of the heuristic risk model into a BI architecture) we decided to create a table were all the steps are detailed described. Now the connection between the scheme and the description is by far easier to be understood.

Case Study- organization in case study is relatively small, it is questionable whether the results can be considered completely relevant. It is also not clear the choice of organization or the way the authors cooperate with the organization. This study also misses the life cycle of the project. There is a need to make better use of the potential of the case study and to point out its limitations.

Thank you very much for this point. In fact, the organization presented in the case study is relatively small. We are at the given time applying the model and the respective incorporation into a BI architecture in other organizations. However, due to the long duration of projects that are being undertaken, it would make impossible to translate the results into this article. Nevertheless, we are already preparing a new article where we will focus more on the application of the model in a wider spectrum and the complexity associated with the interpretation of the results in a normalized way. The choice of the organization has been added in the article as well in which project phase the assessment was conducted. Limitations and benefits were also reviewed/added.

Conclusions, implications, and further developments: I recommend splitting this section into discussion and conclusion for the sake of clarity.

Thank you very much for this point. This was a very good suggestion which fully adopted into the new version of the article.

The main chapters are not completely clear, which worsens the overall clarity of the article. I recommend the authors to create the main sections according to the Instructions for Authors. I recommend for clarity:

Introduction
Literature Review
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusions

Thank you very much for this point. This was a very important suggestion which we fully adopted into the new structure of the article. If simplified the way ideas are structured and presented to the reader in a very efficient way.

There is also no reference to some figures (Fig. 1,3,4,6) and tab 1. If the authors used other sources in their creation, it is appropriate to show them.

Thank you very much for this point. Figures 3,6 are originals from the authors of the article. Figures 1 and 4 were added the references.

I believe that these comments will allow the author to improve the level of the article.

Definitely! Once again thank you very much for all the suggestions, which together with the suggestions of the other reviewers enables to enhance the overall quality of the article.

Reviewer 2 Report

In my opinion, this is an exciting and well-prepared paper. The paper under review includes its original results which are verified by a case study.

Author Response

In my opinion, this is an exciting and well-prepared paper. The paper under review includes its original results which are verified by a case study.

Thank you very much in the name of all the authors of the submitted manuscript. Nevertheless, we believe we’ve made some good improvements. All changes are marked in red in the new version of the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article presents a consolidated structure, focusing on the use of a heuristic organizational risk model incorporated into a typical organizational business intelligence architecture, based on a real case study in an organizational environment.

As a suggestion for improvement, and considering the length of the article, it could be feasible, despite not being an imperative condition, to simplify the language and reduce the text, in order to make its reading clearer and more accurate.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review and contributes to improve the document. All changes are marked in red in the new version of the manuscript.

Thank you very much in the name of all the authors of the submitted manuscript.

Thank you very much for this point. We took into consideration your suggestion and we readjusted the article from 29 pages to 24 pages. The language was also much simplified across the whole document.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has been reworked and my comments have been incorporated. The article looks clear and quality.