Sustainability in Project Management: PM² versus PRiSM^TM

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

It was a pleasure to read your paper, which highlights the project management role in sustainability agenda challenges.

The structure is well-designed, which makes it easier to read and understand. It is developed in a detailed and rigorous way, which is a strong point of this work.

However, some points need clarification and improvement. Allow me to make some further suggestions to improve your work.

Abstract

The abstract should be revised so that it should describe the following points more directly and clearly: 

 - Aims (main and specific)

 - Methodology followed

 - Results

- Theoretical and practical contributions and implications 

1 - Introduction

Ln 40 /41 "This article aims to analyse the presence of sustainability in some PM guides and in scientific publications". The objectives are described very broadly; we need to understand the problem, why this research is important, and how it will contribute to solving the problem.

 2. Materials and methods

Section 2 should include the work's specific aims and/or research questions.

The authors should justify why only the Scopus database was chosen to analyse "Sustainability in PM in scientific publications".

It was also important to justify the choice of standards: PM² and PRiSMTM. Why were these two compared and not others?

It would also be important to explain the criteria used to select the interviewees.

Page 6: Search funnel: Could you explain better the exclusion criteria for moving from the "Extensive search" phase to the "refined search" phase?

Suggestion: Tables 1 and 2 could be in the appendix.

3. The results

The results are presented in a logical and well-structured way.

But, It doesn't make sense to me that the 'Theoretical background' is considered as a result of your research.

 

4. Discussion

In my opinion, the discussion is not well structured.

The discussion only summarizes the results presented in the previous point.

In line with the interpretivism paradigm and a deductive approach, your interpretation of the results is missing, namely:

·         Relate the results to the work's aims 

·         What is the contribution to theory and practice?

·         The added value of your work

·         The work´s originality

·         What are the main limitations of the research that might affect the results?

·         What are the next steps in future research work? 

 I hope to help you improve your paper so the journal Sustainability can publish it.

Otherwise, well done!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for sending this paper to my attention. I find the empirical/literature study of using new methods, means and standards as very enlightening. However, the ambitious and engagement of providing insights from this new standard is also at the cost of positioning the work in current theory. The PM2 device is just one new standard of providing an evaluation of sustainable goals and thus just context. The authors need to go back an more strongly motivate what the problem is in the introduction and position their work in project management standards of goal assessment. 

 

Theoretical section is also very shallow and needs a stronger anchoring in goal assessment. As the authors comes back to how goals and governance change along with the project I would strongly recommend to examine a recently published article on moving goals and governance theory (see Bourne et al., 2023). 

The results are interesting but to lengthy. The authors needs a stronger positioning and leave out much of the jargon in this section. 

 

Good luck!

 

References

Bourne, M., Bosch-Rekveldt, M., & Pesämaa, O. (2023). Moving goals and governance in megaprojects. International Journal of Project Management, 41(5), 102486.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language could be improved. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is very extensive and it is obvious that the authors put a lot of effort into the analysis and writing. The work has much strength, but additional effort is needed to eliminate certain weaknesses.

1. The abstract should be corrected and written in accordance with the instructions. A further shortcoming of the abstract is the use of overly simplified sentences that are not written at an acceptable academic level ("Sustainability has become increasingly important" or "Existing project management methodologies are underdeveloped in sustainability," etc.). The abstract's content should be substantially revised, while the extant content can be incorporated into the Introduction section.

2. In the Introduction section, authors should provide arguments for the "PM² or PRiSM" dilemma. Why PM² and PRiSM and not a comparison between some other PM methodologies.

3. In the Results section, only the results of the interview with the user and co-author of the PM² methodology are presented, while the results of the interview with users and authors are not presented for the PRiSM methodology. In this way, one methodology is favored. The authors should argue in detail the reasons for this approach.

4. In the Discussion section, there is no relationship between the theoretical background and the results of the analysis.

5. The manuscript seems unfinished. The Conclusion section is missing, as well as a more explicit answer to the question contained in the title "PM² or PRiSM - A matter of choice?". In addition, the implications are missing. What are the theoretical implications? What are the practical implications? What are the limitations of the study? Some are obvious and some are not, but all should be clearly stated. What are the directions for future research or empirical studies? Considerable attention should be paid to the development of the text that will address the answers to the above questions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Proofreading is required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well written and coherent concerning its scope and methodological approach. The methodology is fitting well the scope and content of the paper and it is properly used throughout the paper. The sources used to describe and investigate sustainability incorporation into PM methodologies are well selected and used. The review of the literature is well documented and illustrated in the paper.

The discussion and conclusion are based on the investigated sources and its engagement within the sustainability context and are properly used for discussion and conclusion section. All the results that are important for current research and knowledge and are in line with the profile of the journal. There are two debatable issues concerning the paper. The first one is the title which is not fully matching the content of the paper. The reader will possibly not get the clue that we are dealing with sustainability issue just by reading the title. Perhaps, you could consider making it more descriptive. Secondly, it seems that some of the issues raised within the paper are not so relevant for the topic of sustainability coverage within PM methodologies. Just to give example: geographical origin of referred paper is not commented with regard to sustainability or its understanding. Perhaps, since the paper is very complex, we could skip or shorten some less relevant content (just a thought). Overall assessment is positive and I recommend paper for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The current version satisfies my earlier concerns. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No comments.