The Impact of Customer-Centered Quality Management Systems on Profit and Satisfaction in Construction Companies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Kindly find the attached file. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the quality of English in the manuscript requires significant improvement to meet the standards of a high-impact journal. While the manuscript conveys the intended meaning, several issues affect its readability, clarity, and professionalism. 

- Grammar and Syntax Errors
The text contains grammatical mistakes, awkward phrasing, and sentence structure issues that make certain sections difficult to read.
Example:
"Customer-oriented QMS fosters improved feedback mechanisms between the customer and the company, leading to a more precise understanding of customer expectations."
Suggested revision: "A customer-oriented QMS enhances feedback mechanisms between companies and customers, allowing for a clearer understanding of customer expectations."

- Some phrases are wordy or repetitive, making the manuscript less concise.
Example:
"In today's globalized and increasingly competitive environment, construction companies face challenges that require enhancing their competitiveness by optimizing internal processes and strengthening their focus on customer needs."
Suggested revision: "In a globalized and competitive market, construction companies must optimize internal processes and prioritize customer needs to remain competitive."

- Recommendation for Improvement
A. Professional Proofreading Required: The manuscript should undergo a comprehensive language review by a professional editor or native English speaker with expertise in academic writing.
B. Use Clear, Concise Sentences: Please try to avoid overly complex sentence structures that hinder readability.
C. Please Maintain Consistency in Terminology and Style: Ensure that key terms and concepts are used consistently throughout the paper.

Final Assessment: Needs substantial revision for grammar, clarity, and academic tone.

 

Author Response

For research article

 

Response to Reviewer 1-Comments

 

1. Theoretical Foundation and Literature Review

 

 - Superficial Literature Review: The literature review lacks a deep theoretical synthesis. While several studies are cited, the discussion does not critically engage with the underlying theories of QMS, customer satisfaction, and business performance.

Recommendation: Expand the literature review by incorporating a more rigorous theoretical framework. Address gaps in prior research and establish a stronger connection between existing theories and your study’s hypotheses.

Response to Reviewer Comment: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the need for a deeper theoretical synthesis in the literature review. In response, we have significantly revised this section by integrating a more rigorous theoretical framework. Specifically, we have critically engaged with foundational theories related to Quality Management Systems (QMS), customer satisfaction, and business performance. The updated literature review now includes a comparative analysis of prior studies and clearly outlines the theoretical basis for our research hypotheses. These changes aim to strengthen the academic depth and contextual relevance of the study.

- Inconsistent Citations and Potentially Weak Sources: Several citations appear to be weak, possibly from non-reputable sources. Some references lack full bibliographic details (e.g., missing DOI numbers). Recommendation: Ensure that all citations come from high-quality, peer-reviewed journals. Critically evaluate each reference and remove any sources that lack credibility.

Response to Reviewer Comment: Thank you for pointing out the issue regarding citation quality and completeness. We agree with this comment and have carefully reviewed all references. Weak or non-peer-reviewed sources have been removed, and we have replaced them with citations from high-quality, peer-reviewed journals. Additionally, all bibliographic entries have been revised to ensure completeness, including the addition of DOI numbers where available.

-Lack of Novel Contribution: The study claims to fill a research gap, but this is not wellarticulated. How does this study offer a fresh perspective compared to prior research? Recommendation: Clearly highlight the unique contribution of your work. Explain how your findings advance knowledge in QMS, construction project management, or business performance.

Response to Reviewer Comment:

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We agree with the comment and have revised the manuscript to more clearly articulate the novelty of our study. Specifically, we emphasized how this research contributes a fresh perspective by focusing on customer-oriented QMS in the context of construction companies in Kazakhstan—an underexplored area in current literature. We also highlight how our integration of regression and cluster analyses provides new empirical insights into the relationship between QMS, customer satisfaction, and financial performance, thus advancing knowledge in both quality management and construction project performance.

 

 

 

2. Research Methodology

-Data Limitations and Small Sample Size: The study is based on data from only 23 construction companies in Kazakhstan, which may not be sufficient for robust statistical inference.

Recommendation: Either expand the sample size or provide justification for its adequacy, possibly through a power analysis. Discuss any potential biases that may arise due to sample selection

Response to Reviewer Comment:

Thank you for your observation. We acknowledge the limitation related to the sample size. To address this, we conducted a statistical power analysis using G*Power, which showed that a minimum of 21 observations is sufficient to detect a medium effect size (0.5) at a significance level of 0.05 with a power of 0.8. Since our study includes data from 23 companies, the sample is adequate for reliable statistical analysis. We have also added a discussion of potential selection bias and clarified our sampling strategy in the revised methodology section.

 

-Missing Information on Data Collection: The manuscript lacks sufficient details on how data was collected. Were surveys, interviews, or secondary data sources used? Were respondents selected randomly?

Recommendation: Provide a clear explanation of data collection procedures, including survey design (if applicable) and any measures taken to ensure data reliability and validity

Response to Reviewer Comment:

Thank you for highlighting this important point. We agree with the comment and have updated the methodology section to provide a clear explanation of the data collection process. Specifically, we clarified that the data were obtained from secondary sources—official financial and annual reports of 23 construction companies operating in Kazakhstan. A purposive sampling strategy was applied to ensure the inclusion of companies with complete and comparable data. We also described the steps taken to standardize and validate the data to ensure reliability and accuracy.

 

-Cluster Analysis Justification: While the cluster analysis is a good approach, the rationale for selecting k-means clustering over other clustering techniques is not well-explained.

Recommendation: Justify why k-means was chosen instead of hierarchical clustering or other methods. Also, discuss the limitations of this approach.

Response to Reviewer Comment:

Thank you for your constructive feedback. We agree with the comment and have revised the methodology section to provide a clear justification for choosing the k-means clustering method. Specifically, we noted that k-means is well-suited for handling numerical data, offers high interpretability, and performs efficiently with medium-sized datasets like ours. We also acknowledged the method's limitations, such as sensitivity to initial centroid placement and the need to predefine the number of clusters. To address these, we applied the elbow method to determine the optimal number of clusters and conducted multiple runs to ensure the stability of the results.

-Regression Model Validity and Omitted Variables Bias: The regression analysis lacks a discussion on potential omitted variables that could influence the dependent variable (sales volume). Factors such as market demand, competition, and regulatory policies are ignored.

Recommendation: Acknowledge the limitations of the regression model and consider adding control variables to mitigate omitted variable bias.

Response to Reviewer Comment:

Thank you for this important observation. We agree with the comment and have revised the manuscript to address the potential for omitted variable bias in the regression model. In particular, we have acknowledged that external factors such as market demand, competition, and regulatory policies may influence sales volume but were not included due to data limitations. To partially mitigate this, we added a control variable—company’s period of operation (PO)—to account for firm-specific experience and market presence. This limitation and its implications are now clearly discussed in the revised analysis section.

3. Results and Discussion

-Overstatement of Findings: The manuscript suggests that QMS implementation has a definitive causal impact on economic efficiency and customer satisfaction. However, correlation does not imply causation.

Recommendation: Use cautious language and clarify that the study establishes associations rather than causation unless a robust causal methodology (e.g., instrumental variable regression, difference-in-differences) is applied.

Response to Reviewer Comment:

Thank you for this valuable comment. We agree with the reviewer’s concern and have revised the language throughout the manuscript to avoid overstating causality. The study now clearly states that the findings reflect statistical associations rather than definitive causal relationships. We have also acknowledged the methodological limitations in the discussion section, noting that future research using causal inference techniques (e.g., instrumental variable regression or difference-in-differences) would be necessary to confirm causality.

-Lack of Critical Comparison with Prior Research: The discussion section mostly reiterates the findings without critically engaging with past studies. How do these results compare with prior empirical studies?

Recommendation: Provide a comparative analysis with past research. Discuss similarities, contradictions, and potential reasons for any discrepancies.

Response to Reviewer Comment:

Thank you for this insightful comment. We agree with the recommendation and have revised the discussion section to include a more critical comparison with prior research. Specifically, we now compare our findings with those of Gonzalez and Rodriguez (2019), Chen and Li (2020), and Talib et al. (2013), among others. We highlight both consistencies—such as the positive association between customer-oriented QMS and customer satisfaction—and differences, which we attribute to contextual factors like industry structure and regional characteristics. These additions provide a deeper analytical perspective and strengthen the study’s theoretical contribution.

4. Writing and Presentation Issues

-Poorly Structured Abstract: The abstract does not clearly state the research gap, methodology, key findings, and implications.

Recommendation: Revise the abstract to follow a standard structure: (1) background, (2) research problem, (3) methodology, (4) key findings, (5) contribution.

Response to Reviewer Comment:

Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We agree with the comment and have revised the abstract to follow a clear and standard structure. The updated abstract now includes (1) background context, (2) a well-defined research gap, (3) a concise description of the methodology, (4) a summary of key findings, and (5) the study’s theoretical and practical contributions. These changes aim to improve clarity, coherence, and alignment with academic standards.

 

-Language and Readability Issues: The manuscript contains several grammatical errors and awkward phrasing. Recommendation: Consider professional language editing or proofreading to enhance readability and clarity.

Response to Reviewer Comment:

Thank you for your observation. We fully agree with this comment and have carefully revised the manuscript to correct grammatical errors and improve overall readability. The text has been professionally proofread and edited to enhance clarity, coherence, and academic tone. We believe these improvements significantly strengthen the quality and presentation of the manuscript.

-Inconsistent Terminology: The manuscript uses multiple terms interchangeably (e.g., "customer-centric QMS," "client-oriented QMS").

Recommendation: Maintain consistent terminology throughout the paper.

Response to Reviewer Comment:

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the recommendation and have reviewed the manuscript to ensure consistent use of terminology. Terms such as "customer-centric QMS" and "client-oriented QMS" have been standardized throughout the paper to maintain clarity and coherence. This revision improves the precision and readability of the text.

-Figures and Tables Need Improvement: Some figures lack proper labels, and tables are difficult to interpret.

Recommendation: Improve the clarity of figures and tables by providing proper captions, explanatory notes, and consistent formatting.

Response to Reviewer Comment:

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We agree with the comment and have revised all figures and tables to improve clarity and readability. Captions have been added or updated to clearly describe the content, explanatory notes have been included where necessary, and formatting has been standardized throughout the manuscript. These enhancements ensure that all visual elements effectively support the text and are easy to interpret.

 

5. Implications and Practical Contributions

-Lack of Managerial and Policy Implications: The study should provide clearer insights for construction managers and policymakers.

 Recommendation: Discuss how construction firms can practically apply the findings to enhance their QMS implementation. Consider including policy recommendations for regulators.

Response to Reviewer Comment:

Thank you for your insightful comment. We fully agree and have revised the conclusion section to include clear managerial and policy implications. The updated text outlines practical recommendations for construction company managers on optimizing QMS implementation and resource allocation. Additionally, we provide policy suggestions—such as integrating QMS certification into public procurement criteria and supporting training programs—to assist regulators in promoting quality standards across the industry. These additions strengthen the practical relevance of the study.

 

 

-Sustainability Aspects Are Underdeveloped: Given that the journal is likely focused on sustainability, the paper should better connect QMS with sustainability performance.

Recommendation: Discuss how QMS contributes to sustainable construction practices, environmental performance, or corporate social responsibility.

Response to Reviewer Comment:

Thank you for this important observation. We agree with the recommendation and have expanded the discussion and conclusion sections to explicitly link QMS implementation with sustainability. The revised manuscript now highlights how QMS contributes to sustainable construction practices by improving resource efficiency, reducing production waste, and supporting environmental performance. We also discuss its role in enhancing corporate social responsibility by promoting transparency, stakeholder engagement, and long-term value creation. These additions strengthen the alignment of the study with the journal’s focus on sustainability.

Final Verdict and Required Revisions

-Strengthen Literature Review: Deepen theoretical discussion, use high-quality peer-reviewed sources, and clearly articulate the study’s novel contribution.

Response to Reviewer Comment:

Thank you for your constructive feedback. We agree with the comment and have significantly strengthened the literature review section. The revised version includes a deeper theoretical discussion on QMS, customer satisfaction, and business performance. We have also replaced weak references with high-quality, peer-reviewed journal sources and clearly articulated the study’s novel contribution—specifically its empirical focus on customer-oriented QMS in the construction sector of an emerging economy. These improvements enhance the rigor and relevance of the literature review.

-Enhance Methodology: Justify sample size, detail data collection methods, explain the choice of clustering technique, and address omitted variable bias in regression analysis.

Response to Reviewer Comment:

Thank you for your detailed recommendation. We fully agree and have revised the methodology section accordingly. We now justify the sample size using a power analysis, provide a clear explanation of the data collection process based on publicly available financial reports, and explain the rationale for choosing the k-means clustering method over alternatives. Additionally, we address the potential omitted variable bias in the regression analysis by discussing its limitations and including control variables such as the company’s period of operation. These revisions improve the transparency and robustness of the methodological approach.

-Refine Results & Discussion: Avoid overstating findings, clarify associations vs. causation, and critically compare results with prior research.

Response to Reviewer Comment:

Thank you for your helpful feedback. We agree with the comment and have revised the results and discussion sections to address these concerns. The language has been adjusted to avoid overstating the findings, and we now clearly emphasize that the study identifies associations rather than causal relationships. Additionally, we have expanded the discussion to include a critical comparison with prior research, highlighting both consistencies and discrepancies, along with possible explanations. These revisions improve the analytical depth and clarity of the manuscript.

-Improve Writing & Presentation: Structure the abstract clearly, ensure readability, maintain consistent terminology, and enhance figures/tables for clarity.

Response to Reviewer Comment:

Thank you for your comprehensive feedback. We agree with all points raised and have implemented the suggested improvements. The abstract has been restructured for clarity and now follows a standard format. We enhanced overall readability through language editing and proofreading. Terminology has been made consistent throughout the manuscript, particularly in reference to QMS-related terms. Figures and tables have been revised to include clear captions, explanatory notes, and consistent formatting to improve their clarity and presentation.

-Highlight Practical Implications: Provide actionable insights for construction firms and policymakers, and connect QMS with sustainability practices.

Response to Reviewer Comment:

Thank you for your valuable comment. We fully agree and have revised the manuscript to highlight practical implications more clearly. The updated discussion and conclusion sections now provide actionable recommendations for construction firms—such as prioritizing QMS investments, enhancing customer feedback systems, and adopting continuous improvement practices. We have also included policy suggestions for supporting QMS implementation and explicitly linked QMS to sustainability practices, including resource efficiency, waste reduction, and corporate social responsibility.

-Professional Proofreading Required: The manuscript should undergo a comprehensive language review by a professional editor or native English speaker with expertise in academic writing.

Response to Reviewer Comment:

Thank you for your suggestion. We agree with the recommendation and confirm that the manuscript has undergone comprehensive proofreading by a professional English editor with expertise in academic writing. All grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and stylistic inconsistencies have been corrected to enhance readability and ensure clarity throughout the paper.

-Use Clear, Concise Sentences: Avoid overly complex sentence structures that hinder readability.

Response to Reviewer Comment:

Thank you for your helpful comment. We agree with your suggestion and have revised the manuscript to use clearer and more concise sentence structures. Overly complex sentences have been simplified to improve readability and ensure that key ideas are communicated effectively.

-Maintain Consistency in Terminology and Style: Ensure that key terms and concepts are used consistently throughout the paper.

Response to Reviewer Comment:

Thank you for your observation. We agree with the recommendation and have carefully revised the manuscript to ensure consistency in terminology and style. Key terms such as "customer-oriented QMS" are now used uniformly throughout the paper to avoid confusion and maintain clarity.

 

 

Final Assessment: Needs substantial revision for grammar, clarity, and academic tone.

Response to Reviewer Comment:

Thank you for your final assessment. We fully acknowledge the need for substantial revisions and have carefully revised the manuscript to address grammar, clarity, and academic tone. The text has been professionally proofread, sentence structures improved, and the academic style refined to meet the standards of a high-impact journal.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is interesting and the regression and cluster analysis seems adequate but there are issues that need improvement:

• Highlight the specific characteristics of construction companies in Kazakhstan
• Discuss Correlation vs causation/impact
• Discuss Dependent vs independent variable
• Describe sample and variables units particularly unit and comparability of CSL and EEQMS;
• Data collection method and Data availability in companies
• Present conclusions along with limitations of the research method.

 

Introduction

In the literature there are many papers that study relations between key factors and company performance. For example, as is stated in lines 43- 44 “Research in the construction sector also shows that customer satisfaction is closely related to a company’s economic performance”, what is the novelty of this work?

The word “Thus”, in line 61, does not seem to provide a logical connection between presented introduction and this work’s objectives.

 

Objectives:

The paper has unnecessary repetition of the objectives in different paragraphs:

• Line 61 “this study aims to provide an in-depth analysis...” -
• Line 64 “The main objective of the study is to…”
• Line 172 “This study aims to conduct an in-depth analysis…”

The previous studies did not provide such analysis? other studies found correlation but there are few studies in Kazakhstan?

 

Literature Review

Citations are missing when referring to published research, for example: line 123 “Research by Wang, D., Li, H. and Brown, K., Smith, J. confirms that…”.

The two Hypotheses are formulated in the context of construction industries in Kazakhstan (this region has a specific context)? As the hypotheses are formulated it seems that previous studies have reached conclusions.

 

Research Methodology

The research methodology is clear about the analyses to be performed but it is vague about the data source. Line 130, “this paper employs several quantitative methods of analysis and modeling based on foreign and Kazakhstani studies”.

However, in Line 216 states “data were collected from 23 construction companies in Kazakhstan for 2023 year.”

Analysis and conclusions are based on data from 23 construction companies in Kazakhstan. 

• The paper should describe the sample
• What was the data collection method? Many studies report companies do not have reliable data (or do not have data) on some performance indicators /factors. For example, many companies do not collect/record Quality Management Costs or EEQMS. The 23 companies were selected by convenience?
• A structured questionnaire was used?
• Were there other companies contacted that did not provided data (if a questionnaire was used, what was the response rate)?
• The method of determining EEQMS was comparable in the 23 companies?

 

Analysis

The content of the first four paragraphs of Section “4. Analysis” seem out of place. Its content was referred in previous sections.

Section 4 is big. It should have subsections.

Figures 2 and 3 have similar caption, Explain better their differences. The meaning of the lines linking elements of Fig. 3. Is not clear.

In lines 288-291, refers to correlation between  OCP and SV. However, the correlation is not the same as impact or causality. This should be discussed, I can argue that SV impacts in OCP but the papers argues that OCP impacts SV. Also, based on paper’s title OPC could be considered a dependent variable.

 

Conclusions

The conclusions, In lines 569-572, confirm similar conclusions of other authors referred in the Introduction and literature review. What is the contribution of the paper?

The limitations regarding conclusions should be addressed, such as, the study is based on a particular sample (are conclusions general?); the analysis find correlations and clusters and the conclusions assume that improving certain analysed factors will impact performance.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Lines 36-37, where is “Quality management systems, such as ISO 9001” should be “Quality management systems, such as the ones fulfilling the requirements of ISO 9001:2015”

In many parts of the text, after introducing acronyms, such as QMS, the authors still use the extensive form.

Each figure or table should be referred in text explicitly. For example, in line 178, instead of “The following matrix outlines” it should be “Figure 1 shows a matrix that outlines”

Many paragraphs can be merged as they express the same idea. For example, in line 237, “In such cases, (…)” this paragraph can be merged with the previous paragraph.

Figures 6 and 9 should have translation to English.

What is the meaning of OLS in line 268?

Author Response

2 response to the reviewer's comments and recommendations

 

The topic is interesting and the regression and cluster analysis seems adequate but there are issues that need improvement:

• Highlight the specific characteristics of construction companies in Kazakhstan
• Discuss Correlation vs causation/impact
• Discuss Dependent vs independent variable
• Describe sample and variables units particularly unit and comparability of CSL and EEQMS;
• Data collection method and Data availability in companies
• Present conclusions along with limitations of the research method.

 Response to Reviewer Comment:

Thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback. We agree with all the points raised and have addressed each in the revised manuscript. Specifically:

We have added a dedicated discussion of the specific characteristics of construction companies in Kazakhstan, highlighting their structure, challenges, and regulatory context.

The distinction between correlation and causation has been clarified.

The roles of dependent and independent variables in the regression model have been explicitly described.

The sample and measurement units for all variables, including CSL and EEQMS, have been clearly defined and standardized to ensure comparability.

We have expanded the section on data collection methods, explaining that data were sourced from official financial and annual reports, and provided details on data availability and verification.

Finally, we revised the conclusion section to include the methodological limitations of the study and directions for future research.

 

Introduction

In the literature there are many papers that study relations between key factors and company performance. For example, as is stated in lines 43- 44 “Research in the construction sector also shows that customer satisfaction is closely related to a company’s economic performance”, what is the novelty of this work?

The word “Thus”, in line 61, does not seem to provide a logical connection between presented introduction and this work’s objectives.

 Response to Reviewer Comment: Clarified and corrected.

Objectives:

The paper has unnecessary repetition of the objectives in different paragraphs:

• Line 61 “this study aims to provide an in-depth analysis...” -
• Line 64 “The main objective of the study is to…”
• Line 172 “This study aims to conduct an in-depth analysis…”

The previous studies did not provide such analysis? other studies found correlation but there are few studies in Kazakhstan?

 Response to Reviewer Comment: Clarified and corrected.

Literature Review

Citations are missing when referring to published research, for example: line 123 “Research by Wang, D., Li, H. and Brown, K., Smith, J. confirms that…”.

The two Hypotheses are formulated in the context of construction industries in Kazakhstan (this region has a specific context)? As the hypotheses are formulated it seems that previous studies have reached conclusions.

  Response to Reviewer Comment: Clarified and corrected.

Research Methodology

The research methodology is clear about the analyses to be performed but it is vague about the data source. Line 130, “this paper employs several quantitative methods of analysis and modeling based on foreign and Kazakhstani studies”.

However, in Line 216 states “data were collected from 23 construction companies in Kazakhstan for 2023 year.”

Analysis and conclusions are based on data from 23 construction companies in Kazakhstan. 

• The paper should describe the sample
• What was the data collection method? Many studies report companies do not have reliable data (or do not have data) on some performance indicators /factors. For example, many companies do not collect/record Quality Management Costs or EEQMS. The 23 companies were selected by convenience?
• A structured questionnaire was used?
• Were there other companies contacted that did not provided data (if a questionnaire was used, what was the response rate)?
• The method of determining EEQMS was comparable in the 23 companies?

 Response to Reviewer Comment:

Thank you for your valuable observations regarding the research methodology. We agree with your comments and have made the necessary clarifications in the revised manuscript:

• The sample of 23 construction companies operating in Kazakhstan in 2023 is now clearly described, including company size, industry segment, and selection criteria.
• Data were collected from publicly available annual and financial reports published on official company websites and government procurement portals. No surveys or questionnaires were used.
• The companies were selected based on the availability of complete and comparable data for key indicators, including QMC and EEQMS.
• To ensure consistency, we applied a standardized approach to estimating EEQMS across all companies by using comparable financial metrics and documented calculation formulas, which are now explained in the methodology section.
• We have also acknowledged the potential limitations in data availability and included this in the discussion of study limitations.

These revisions provide a more transparent and comprehensive explanation of our data collection approach and sample selection.

 

Analysis

The content of the first four paragraphs of Section “4. Analysis” seem out of place. Its content was referred in previous sections.

Section 4 is big. It should have subsections.

Figures 2 and 3 have similar caption, Explain better their differences. The meaning of the lines linking elements of Fig. 3. Is not clear.

In lines 288-291, refers to correlation between  OCP and SV. However, the correlation is not the same as impact or causality. This should be discussed, I can argue that SV impacts in OCP but the papers argues that OCP impacts SV. Also, based on paper’s title OPC could be considered a dependent variable.

 Response to Reviewer Comment:

Thank you for your insightful comments. We fully agree with your observations and have addressed them in the revised manuscript:

• The introductory paragraphs of Section 4 ("Analysis") were revised and shortened to remove repetitive content already discussed in earlier sections. Their placement and focus were adjusted to better fit the analytical context.
• Section 4 has now been reorganized with clear subsections to improve readability and logical flow.
• The captions and explanations for Figures 2 and 3 have been revised to clearly distinguish their content. We also clarified the meaning of the connecting lines in Figure 3 to improve interpretability.
• We acknowledge your point about the distinction between correlation and causality. The manuscript has been revised to emphasize that the findings demonstrate associations rather than causation. We also clarified our rationale for treating OCP as an independent variable based on theoretical foundations and research design, while recognizing that in other contexts, it could be viewed as a dependent variable.

We appreciate your suggestions, which have helped strengthen the clarity and rigor of our analysis section.

Conclusions

The conclusions, In lines 569-572, confirm similar conclusions of other authors referred in the Introduction and literature review. What is the contribution of the paper?

The limitations regarding conclusions should be addressed, such as, the study is based on a particular sample (are conclusions general?); the analysis find correlations and clusters and the conclusions assume that improving certain analysed factors will impact performance.

Response to Reviewer Comment:

 

Thank you for your valuable observations. We agree with your comments and have made the necessary revisions:

The contribution of the paper has been explicitly clarified in the conclusions section. It highlights how our study offers context-specific insights into customer-oriented QMS implementation in the Kazakhstani construction sector—an under-researched area—and applies a combined regression and cluster analysis approach to reveal performance patterns.

We have also addressed the limitations of our conclusions. Specifically, we now note that the findings are based on a sample of 23 companies and may not be fully generalizable. Additionally, we have clarified that our analysis identifies correlations rather than causality, and assumptions about potential impacts should be interpreted with caution.

These revisions enhance the transparency and academic rigor of the conclusions section.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Lines 36-37, where is “Quality management systems, such as ISO 9001” should be “Quality management systems, such as the ones fulfilling the requirements of ISO 9001:2015”

In many parts of the text, after introducing acronyms, such as QMS, the authors still use the extensive form.

Each figure or table should be referred in text explicitly. For example, in line 178, instead of “The following matrix outlines” it should be “Figure 1 shows a matrix that outlines”

Many paragraphs can be merged as they express the same idea. For example, in line 237, “In such cases, (…)” this paragraph can be merged with the previous paragraph.

Figures 6 and 9 should have translation to English.

What is the meaning of OLS in line 268?

Response to Reviewer Comment:

Thank you for your detailed feedback regarding the language and formatting. We fully agree with your observations and have made the following corrections:

The phrase "Quality management systems, such as ISO 9001" has been revised to "Quality management systems, such as the ones fulfilling the requirements of ISO 9001:2015" for precision and clarity.

The usage of acronyms has been standardized throughout the manuscript. After the first introduction, only acronyms (e.g., QMS, EEQMS) are now used consistently.

All figures and tables are now explicitly referenced in the text. For example, “Figure 1 shows a matrix that outlines…” has replaced vague references.

Redundant paragraphs have been merged where appropriate to improve flow and coherence. Specifically, the paragraph beginning with “In such cases…” has been merged with the preceding one.

Captions for Figures 6 and 9 have been translated into English to ensure clarity for an international audience.

The abbreviation "OLS" in line 268 has been clarified in the text as "Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression."

These improvements enhance both the clarity and readability of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper. Despite the effort put into it, the paper needs more work and effort to be suitable for publication and to fill in the missing parts.

Abstract: the abstract lacks detailed methodological transparency regarding sample size, data collection, and potential industry-specific variables that may influence outcomes. Additionally, while the findings emphasize the benefits of a customer-centered approach, they do not fully explore external factors such as market conditions, regulatory policies, or macroeconomic influences. A broader comparative analysis with international cases could further strengthen the generalizability of the results.

Introduction: The study effectively highlights the critical role of customer-centric quality management systems (QMS), such as ISO 9001, in enhancing both financial performance and customer satisfaction within the construction industry. By incorporating international and Kazakhstani research, it provides a well-rounded perspective on how QMS contributes to competitiveness, profitability, and resilience to market fluctuations. The references to previous studies lend credibility to its claims, particularly regarding increased customer trust, repeat business, and resource efficiency. However, the study would benefit from a more detailed discussion on potential challenges in implementing QMS, such as cost implications, organizational resistance, and regulatory barriers. Additionally, while it acknowledges both foreign and domestic research, a comparative analysis of QMS effectiveness across different markets would strengthen its generalizability.

Literature review: This part presents a well-structured synthesis of existing research on customer-centric quality management systems (QMS) and their impact on business performance, customer satisfaction, and operational efficiency. By citing diverse studies, both international and Kazakhstani, the review successfully establishes a strong theoretical foundation for the study’s hypotheses. The inclusion of multiple dimensions—profitability, process optimization, and QMS evaluation—adds depth to the discussion. However, the review could benefit from a more critical analysis of the cited literature rather than just summarizing findings. For instance, variations in QMS effectiveness across different industries, company sizes, or regulatory environments are not explored. Additionally, potential contradictions or limitations in previous studies are not addressed, which could strengthen the study’s analytical rigor. A clearer differentiation between general QMS benefits and those specifically linked to customer-centric approaches would also enhance clarity. Overall, while comprehensive, the literature review could integrate a more comparative and critical discussion to refine its theoretical arguments.

Research Methodology: This part is well-structured and employs robust quantitative techniques to assess the impact of quality management systems (QMS) on financial and operational performance in construction companies. By integrating regression analysis, structural equation modeling (SEM), and cluster analysis, the study ensures a comprehensive assessment of QMS efficiency. The use of multivariate analysis to examine quality management costs in relation to profitability aligns with established research methodologies, adding credibility to the approach.

However, some critical aspects need further clarification:

1. Data Sources and Sample Size – The methodology does not specify the number of construction companies surveyed or the criteria for sample selection (e.g., company size, market segment, or years in operation). Including these details would strengthen the study’s validity.
2. Limitations and Control Variables – The analysis could be affected by external factors such as market fluctuations, government regulations, or industry-specific challenges. It is unclear whether the study accounts for such variables.
3. Justification for Clustering Approach – While k-means or hierarchical clustering is an appropriate choice, the rationale for selecting one over the other is not explained. A discussion of potential limitations or alternative approaches would enhance methodological transparency.
4. Time Frame of Analysis – The study does not mention whether the data is cross-sectional or longitudinal, which is crucial for assessing causal relationships over time.

Analysis: This section needs to be reorganized more clearly to make it easier to understand the results in a sequential and clear manner.

Discussion: This section is missing. This section should be added to discuss the most important results and interpret them in light of previous studies, whether in agreement or disagreement, in a deep critical and analytical manner.

Theoretical and practical implications: These two parts are missing. They should be added to explain how the paper adds to knowledge as well as recommendations.

Limitations and future research: This section is also missing. This section should be added to explain the most important limitations of the paper and how they open up horizons for future research.

Conclusions: The study’s conclusions effectively underscore the strategic importance of quality management systems (QMS) in enhancing customer satisfaction and profitability within the construction industry. The identification of company clusters highlights varying levels of quality investment, emphasizing the need for underperforming firms to prioritize service and product improvements for greater competitiveness. However, the conclusions could be strengthened by providing more specific recommendations for different clusters, discussing broader industry and policy implications, and outlining strategies for sustaining long-term quality improvements. A deeper exploration of regulatory support and technological advancements in QMS would further enhance the study’s practical relevance.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer’s Comments

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the detailed and insightful comments. We agree with all observations and have revised the manuscript accordingly to address the gaps and improve the overall structure, depth, and clarity of the paper. Below is a point-by-point response structured by section.

Abstract:
Comment: The abstract lacks methodological transparency and fails to address external factors and international comparisons.
Response: We agree with the comment. The abstract has been revised to include key methodological details, such as sample size (23 companies), data collection approach (secondary data from annual and financial reports), and analytical methods (regression, cluster analysis). We have also noted the study’s limitations regarding market-specific variables and emphasized the need for future comparative studies to enhance generalizability.

Introduction:
Comment: While the introduction outlines the importance of QMS, it would benefit from a deeper discussion on implementation challenges and international comparisons.
Response: We have expanded the introduction to include a discussion on challenges in QMS implementation, such as cost barriers, resistance to change, and regulatory constraints. Additionally, we highlighted the differences in QMS adoption between advanced and emerging markets to improve the study’s contextualization and generalizability.

Literature Review:
Comment: The review provides a good foundation but lacks critical analysis, differentiation between types of QMS benefits, and sectoral or contextual variation.
Response: The literature review section has been enhanced by critically discussing contradictions in previous studies and the varying effectiveness of QMS across industries and organizational scales. We now distinguish more clearly between general QMS practices and those specific to customer-centric approaches. Recent peer-reviewed studies have also been added to support our analysis.

Research Methodology:
Comment: The methodology needs clarification on data sources, sample details, control variables, justification for clustering methods, and the analysis timeframe.
Response: We have thoroughly revised the methodology section:

• Specified that the sample includes 23 construction companies selected based on data completeness and accessibility.
• Clarified that data was obtained from publicly available sources (corporate reports, procurement platforms).
• Discussed control variables and acknowledged potential external factors (e.g., market fluctuations, regulatory environment).
• Justified the choice of the k-means algorithm over hierarchical clustering due to scalability and interpretability.
• Clarified that the analysis is based on cross-sectional data from the year 2023.

Analysis:
Comment: Section 4 needs clearer structure and clarification of figures and interpretations.
Response: The analysis section has been reorganized with new subheadings for regression analysis, correlation matrix interpretation, and cluster analysis. Figures 2 and 3 have been renamed and explained in detail, including the function of connecting lines in Figure 3. The correlation vs. causation issue has also been addressed with a discussion of limitations.

Discussion (Missing Section):
Comment: The discussion section is missing and should critically interpret the results.
Response: A new discussion section has been added. It provides a critical comparison of our findings with previous research, identifies alignment and discrepancies, and offers interpretations based on contextual factors in Kazakhstan’s construction sector.

Theoretical and Practical Implications (Missing Section):
Comment: These parts should be added.
Response: We have added two separate sections. Theoretical implications outline the contribution to QMS literature in emerging markets. Practical implications provide guidance for construction managers and policymakers regarding QMS implementation and optimization.

Limitations and Future Research (Missing Section):
Comment: This section is missing.
Response: A new section has been added to address the study’s limitations, including the cross-sectional nature of the data and the limited generalizability due to the sample size. We also propose future research directions such as longitudinal studies and cross-country comparisons.

Conclusions:
Comment: Conclusions are strong but could include more detailed recommendations and broader implications.
Response: We agree and have revised the conclusion to include:

• Cluster-specific recommendations for companies with different QMS maturity levels.
• Broader industry and policy suggestions such as government incentives and regulatory standards.
• Strategies for sustaining improvements, including digital QMS platforms and continuous training.

Once again, we thank the reviewer for their constructive feedback, which has significantly improved the quality and clarity of our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research. Also, you need to add more relevant and updated references. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English can be improved. 

Author Response

1 question: The English could be improved to more clearly express the research. Also, you need to add more relevant and updated references. 

Response to Reviewer 1:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive comments. We have carefully addressed the suggestions provided:

1. Regarding English language and clarity – The manuscript has been thoroughly revised to improve readability and clarity. We applied professional academic language editing to enhance the overall expression of research objectives, methodology, and findings.
2. On updated and relevant references – We have reviewed the reference list and added several recent and authoritative sources published in 2022–2024, including works by Lee & Han (2023) and Rodríguez & Baeza (2023), to strengthen the theoretical framework and relevance of our literature review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been improved according to reviewer comments.

Only Figure 1 is explicitly referred in the text. The same should be made for the remaining Figures.

Author Response

1 question: Only Figure 1 is explicitly referred in the text. The same should be made for the remaining Figures.

Response to Reviewer 2:

All comments by the reviewer have been addressed and corrected in the revised version of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A great deal of effort has gone into addressing the comments in the paper. The paper has become clearer and more in-depth as the main issues have been addressed.

I have no further questions or suggestions.

Good luck.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and support. We greatly appreciate your time and constructive comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf