Exploring the Factors Influencing Project Management Methodology Implementation in Local Governments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an important and underexplored area—namely, the implementation of Project Management Methodologies (PMMs) in local government (LG) capital works projects in Australia. While the topic is both timely and practically relevant, the manuscript, in its current form, falls short of making a strong scholarly contribution due to following weaknesses.

Although the authors cite contingency theory and maturity models (P3M3), these frameworks are superficially treated and not meaningfully integrated into either the research design or interpretation of findings.  Furthermore, the paper claims novelty in using an interpretivist thematic approach, yet similar qualitative efforts exist in the project management literature. What is missing is a robust positioning of this study within ongoing academic debates—such as tensions between standardization vs. contextual adaptation in public sector project delivery—or a clear articulation of how the findings contribute new knowledge beyond descriptive categorization.

The introduction, though rich in context, lacks precision in defining the research problem. There are implicit references to gaps, such as inconsistent PMM adoption, but no explicit statement of research questions or hypotheses. This weakens the analytical coherence of the entire manuscript. The objectives are broad and outcome-focused (e.g., to assist LGs), but the study lacks a sharp intellectual purpose—such as testing relationships between factors or critically interrogating assumptions underlying PMM implementation in bureaucratic settings.

The literature review demonstrates breadth but lacks critical depth. Many sections are descriptive and do not engage with competing perspectives or limitations in existing models. Moreover, the review fails to surface tensions, contradictions, or conceptual blind spots that would justify this study’s necessity. For instance, the authors could better contrast public and private sector PMM uptake, or explore how LG-specific constraints (e.g., political cycles, fiscal oversight, community engagement mandates) uniquely shape PMM adaptation.

The methodology section presents an interpretivist, thematic approach guided by Braun and Clarke (2008), yet the explanation of coding procedures, theme development, and analytic validation is weak. There is no mention of intercoder reliability, reflexivity, or how saturation was achieved. The decision to rely exclusively on interviews—without triangulation via project documents, process audits, or observational data—limits the reliability and depth of the conclusions. Also, the rationale behind participant selection lacks clarity; there is no discussion of sampling strategy beyond geographic spread, and power dynamics (e.g., manager vs. subordinate perspectives) are not examined critically.

The findings are thematically organized into adoption, deployment, and optimization stages, which is helpful, but several themes appear conceptually redundant or overlapping (e.g., leadership, commitment, and empowerment). The presentation of results remains largely descriptive; while participant quotes are used, there is limited critical engagement with contradictions, deviant cases, or unexpected patterns. Moreover, there is no evidence of theoretical abstraction—the analysis stops at the category level without synthesizing broader implications for public administration theory or project governance.

The discussion reiterates findings rather than extending them. There is a missed opportunity to compare results with prior research, draw insights across cases, or generate a refined conceptual model. Without theoretical development or methodological innovation, the contribution remains largely practical and limited to the Australian context. The claim that this study bridges theory and practice is unsubstantiated without clearer articulation of what theoretical insights are being advanced.

The conclusion summarizes the study well but lacks critical reflection. Limitations are acknowledged only superficially, and the call for future research is generic. More compelling would be a reflection on what the findings imply for the standardization of PMMs in public institutions with diverse capacities and mandates, or how maturity models may need to evolve to account for political and institutional contingencies.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the introduction part may be given some other examples that would lead to the conclusion that the topic needs to be researched.

Maybe some models of good practices could be provided to emphasize the reasoning for this research in that specific context.

• Being a qualitative research there is no need for testing hypotheses but research questions should be clearly formulated by authors. There are no research questions formulated in the paper.

• There is no much novelty in the way that project management is influenced by the culture of the organization, governance, or the way things are going on in the institution, so the topic is not very relevant to the field or very novel. The authors should emphasize more on how this paper add novelty to the field and how this research could be used by specialists in the field? How the results could be related to other countries?

• The authors mentioned the contingency theory in the theoretical framework but there are no connections made in the results with this theory. 

• The methodology is a qualitative one. Of course that a solid research would have combined qualitative research with quantitative one based on a questionnaire addressed to a larger population, so the relevance would be higher, but unfortunately this cannot be done now.

• The limits of the paper should be mentioned. There are no limits mentioned by the authors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revision. I think this version is much improved. However there are three more points that need to be improved:

1- abstract does not spell out clearly the data collection method, although analysis is stated. The abstract needs to describe technique used in data collection or subject involved.

2- a graphical presentation summarising and showing factors influencing project management is needed before section 6.

3-  trustworthiness or credibility instead of validity used in qualitative research design should be elaborated (by way of measuring 'validity' of a study). See Robert Yin, J Creswell and Denzin. Interpretivist is ok but whether the term phenomenology and case study is suitable in this study

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you Authors for the improvement. The revisions made are sufficient.