The Smart Governance Framework and Enterprise System’s Capability for Improving Bio-Business Licensing Services

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript basically discussed the Smart Government Framework and priority-based recommendations to making bio-business permits. The recommendation-based results are helpful to develop capabilities of several Enterprise Architecture (EA). The impact-effort matrix is developed for program prioritization.   However, I have following comments for this manuscript:

Specific Comments:

1)     First paragraph of the Introduction is very unclear.  Please review your writing in the introduction. I believe the manuscript is started with sentences from the 3^rd paragraph of the Introduction.

2)      Why an assessment is necessary for using smart Governance framework? There is no crucial problem and justification in the introduction.

3)     The explanation of Enterprises Architecture (EA) framework is not new. What is the relationship between EA and impact-effort matrices. The crucial work of the manuscript is more like a questions and answers. Design and a develop new model for the EA framework.

4)     It is better to demonstrate Impact-Effort matrix values. How matrix categorize each recommendation.

 

General Comments:

 

1.     Remake Figure 1 with proper resolution. Rewrite your captions using more information.

Author Response

Dear sir,

Please see the attachment.

Thanks.

Kind Regards,

-Arif Imam Suroso-

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

11. The Introduction needs to expand the contextualization of the topic. It is very summarized and saturated. It is necessary to expand the background and compare the present situation in Indonesia with similar experiences in other countries to understand the importance of this paper.

22. Improve the way in which the parameters that measure health, or the state of health of the specific businesses dealt with in the paper, are presented.

33. Improve the grammatical correctness of the English used in the article.

44. Figure D1 is almost illegible. It should be exposed in a more didactic way or look for a solution to the scale of the diagram.

55. In general, the way the article is presented requires a complete revision of form and substance to improve the purpose of the study.

Improve the grammatical correctness of the English used in the article.

Author Response

Dear sir,

Please see attachnment.

Thanks.

Kind Regards,

-Arif Imam Suroso-

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Review: The Smart Governance Framework and Enterprise System Capability for Improving Bio-Business Licensing Services

This article is a study aiming at carrying out an assessment using a smart governance framework and recommendation capabilities from the Enterprise System (ES). 

The authors’ contribution is given in terms of three elements: a) analyze the implementation of business licensing services using smart government; b) analyze those services based on the ES capabilities; c) provide recommendations for improving services supporting good smart cities and e-government.

 

The article is well motivated. In section 1 (Introduction) the authors present a general setting related to the OSS software, discussing the importance of an assessment using a smart governance framework, as well as recommendations for capabilities from ES.  In my opinion, Section 1 should be improved by clarifying better the problem to be tackled and the role of ES in this context. Otherwise it is very difficult for the reader to get a clear picture of the scenario under consideration and the associated contribution of the article. 

 

In Section 2 (Materials and Methods) there are also some aspects which need further clarification. The authors refer to the Design Thinking Approach, summarizing the research stages in Fig. 1.  This Figure needs further explanation, maybe clarifying the inputs and outputs associated with every stage and their interconnection. The same happens with figure 2 (the overall setting should be clarified, even though the description is a high level one). 

 

By clarifying the previous elements, the next subsections (2.2, 2.3 etc.) should be easier to understand. Please note that there are some typos/ grammar errors to be corrected as well (see below).  

 

Section 3 (Results) needs also several corrections and rephrasing of different statements. E.g. caption in Fig. 5 :  “This is a figure of…”.  The itemized lists should also be clarified and improved (too many abbreviations introduced which are not clear for the reader, e.g. in subsec. 3.2.3 ).  I think the article needs considerable rephrasing in this Section to make contents more clear, providing better connection between running text and figures. 

 

Section 4 (Discussion) provides a global view of the results obtained from the research, but it would be advisable to  add as well some conclusions and possible future work.  Another missing element in the article structure is the “Related work” analysis, through which the presented approach can be better contrasted with other research. 

 

In summary, in my opinion the article tackles a very interesting problem, but needs considerable rephrasing and reorganization to make the content, ideas and contribution more clear for the intended audience.  The connection of running text and figures should be improved, and some additional explanation should be added in order to clarify the role of some abbreviations.

Typos and other errors:

 

Abstract:  “And The use” -> please reformulate

And Article 7 paragraph (1) … -> rephrase to 

 

It is necessary to apply the concept of e-government, namely one integrated service – > reformulate this statement, as “e-government” is not equal to one integrated service.

 

And also the implementation … - > rephrase to eliminate “And” from the beginning

 

Figure 1 needs further clarification (e.g. provide a short paragraph explaining what is going to be done at each stage, and how the output of one stage are used as input in the next one).

 

Abbreviations: note that the abbreviation KBLI is used in Fig. 1 before being introduced later in the running text.   In my opinion, it may be a bit complicated to keep introducing different abbreviations corresponding to Indonesian terms (e.g. KBLI, KLHK, etc.) as the abbreviations themselves are not representative of the terms when reading in English.  I would suggest adopting some convention in this respect, or introducing a table with equivalences (terms - abbreviation). 

the author chooses oil palm as a commodity – >  rephrase. The same happens in subsec. 2.5

transparently - > transparency (?)

Different aspects of English usage are to be corrected in a revised version of the article. Some issues are mentioned in the typos/ grammar comments.

Author Response

Dear sir,

Please see the attachment.

Kind Regards,

-Arif Imam Suroso-

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The submitted second version of this manuscript is enhanced than the first draft. However, the introduction section is still repeated and relies its own general ideas. The overall flow of introduction has a lack of control for the publication. In section 2, it is better to add more critical points from the section 3 and section 4. Moreover, English re-writing is necessary for the publication. 

The manuscript needs a extensive rewriting from the paid editors. 

Author Response

Dear sir,

Please see the attachment.

Kind regard,   Arif Imam Suroso

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article has improved considerably after the corrections made by the authors. The English usage has improved as well, as a result from the edition process carried out by MDPI (as explained by the authors in their responses). The paragraphs added at the end (Discussion section) have also made considerable improvements, as well as the new explanations provided for the different Figures and Tables involved.

 

Even though the article has had many considerable improvements, I think that minor modifications are in order. For example, in the Introduction (Sec 1), the first paragraph should be rephrased (as it stands, the statements are not correctly connected, see below). As a reviewer I would appreciate if the article text can be further improved in this respect (analyzing possible statements which are too short or somehow not clearly connected with the preceding lines in a paragraph).

 

“Recommendations for improving licensing services have been previously discussed. It is necessary to apply the concept of one integrated service in the implementation of e-government[1] . Also the implementation of smart governance to prove service transparency, bureaucratic efficiency, and getting input from users  for continuous improvement [2]. So, it is expected to increase Indonesia's ranking  in providing ease of doing business”

Quality of English  Language has improved considerably. However, there are some statements and paragraphs which require revising (see comments and suggestions) in order for the article text to be in the proper final form.

Author Response

Dear sir,

Please see the attachment.

Kind regard,   Arif Imam Suroso

Author Response File: Author Response.docx