Can the “VUCA Meter” Augment the Traditional Project Risk Identification Process? A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to study the interesting article. The article needs to be completed and supplemented with additional information. It is necessary to focus on the following parts:

1. Abstract- authors should point more to the scientific methods used in the article (see Instructions for Authors – Abstract)
2. Literature review – In this section, it is necessary to point out more research dealing with the issue. I also recommend linking risk management more to sustainability
3. Methodology – It would be appropriate to point out other research where a workshop was used to obtain the opinions of experts. It is also necessary to place more emphasis on the methodological process of processing the article to achieve the set goal
4. Result – the results of the work look very poor. It is important to interpret findings from the workshop more. Also, don't narrow it down to large tables. It would be good to create a comparison table where the results were clearly displayed. In section 5.1 you point out that more than 60% of the participants .... These findings are not so significant, as the number of all panellists was only 13. This section should also contain other findings and a greater consensus of the expert survey.
5. Discussion - in this part, it is necessary to correctly point out the significant results and suggest ways to improve the issue. The claims in this section need to be supported by several scientific papers or professional publications. In this part, it should be clear whether the set goal of the methodology part has been met.

Author Response

Dear reviewer. Thank you for your review. We, the authors, have responded to your fine comments in the following fashion.

1. Abstract- authors should point more to the scientific methods used in the article (see Instructions for Authors – Abstract). The main scientific methods to achieve the results are now addressed in the abstract.
2. Literature review – In this section, it is necessary to point out more research dealing with the issue. I also recommend linking risk management more to sustainability. Studies on normative methods to address "fat-tail"  risk are not frequent in the literature.  However, we added a research were a VUCA matrix was used to address risk. Furthermore, we made the connection between the VUCA meter and sustainability more clear.
3. Methodology – It would be appropriate to point out other research where a workshop was used to obtain the opinions of experts. It is also necessary to place more emphasis on the methodological process of processing the article to achieve the set goal. We added a sentence and a reference to consolidate better the workshop approach used in this study.
4. Result – the results of the work look very poor. It is important to interpret findings from the workshop more. Also, don't narrow it down to large tables. It would be good to create a comparison table where the results were clearly displayed. In section 5.1 you point out that more than 60% of the participants .... These findings are not so significant, as the number of all panellists was only 13. This section should also contain other findings and a greater consensus of the expert survey. We think that the tables are needed so the reader can grasp the outcomes. But we agree that the result section is a bit thin. We therefore added to the result section the observations made from the statistical analysis on the results how the impact assessment in the respective methods correlated in terms of consistency. We also add to the results a note on the pitfalls in the assessment that should be addressed in the future. We do not fully understand the comment on the >60% cut off points. The >60% cut off is a decision rule on how well the respective event complied to the black swan criteria in the Delphi survey. We admit that this decision rule can be debated e.g. why not 50% compliance or 70% compliance? But a cut-off point criteria was needed and the authors agreed on >60%.
5. Discussion - in this part, it is necessary to correctly point out the significant results and suggest ways to improve the issue. The claims in this section need to be supported by several scientific papers or professional publications. In this part, it should be clear whether the set goal of the methodology part has been met. We have improved the text. e.g. added a reference and clarified our achievement, according to the reviewers remarks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic addressed by the authors is very interesting, as they aim to improve some fundamental phases of the risk management process, namely the identification and assessment of project risks. This is done by comparing the VUCA meter approach against a traditional risk identification process as recommended by PMI. Although I believe that this topic is of interest and that many advances can still be made with respect to the existing literature, I can only consider publishing the article after major revisions aimed at clarifying/deepening/improving the following points.

Firstly, I am not sure what the innovative contribution of this research is. The authors apply the VUCA meter approach to understand if it can support the conventional risk identification process. However at lines 157- 159, the authors write: “The four components of VUCA are defined based on Bennett's and Lemoine’s [6] discussions and definition in their article from 2014. Bennett and Lemoine define each part carefully, as well as how to address them, and give clear examples to explain. Each part must be addressed individually since they require a unique response”. In view of this, what is the advancement brought forward by the authors? I think this should be clearer. Or, in any case, the authors need to clarify in lines 48-51 what they have done in their previous work and what is the innovation of the present research.

In the introduction, I think it would be better to first introduce the general problem on which the authors focus their research, then to dwell on the presentation of the case study.

The literature review can be improved with more recent contributions. To mention just a few:

• Mikkelsen, M.F.; Marnewick, C.; Klein, K. On Stupidity in Project Management—A critical reflection of PM in a VUCA world. J. Mod. Proj. Manag. 2020, 8, 2
• Mack O., Jungen M. (2016) Program Management in VUCA Environments: Theoretical and Pragmatical Thoughts on a Systemic Management of Projects and Programs. In: Mack O., Khare A., Krämer A., Burgartz T. (eds) Managing in a VUCA World. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16889-0_3

On lines 255-256, the authors write: The conventional method for risk identification delivered a total of 52 risk factors whereas 119 risk factors were obtained using the VUCA method, see Figure 1”. However, it is not clear how 52 risk factors were obtained in the first case and 119 in the second. In my opinion this passage needs to be clarified because it is a fundamental part of the work.

Author Response

Dear reviewer. Thank you for your review. We, the authors, have responded to your fine comments in the following fashion.

1. Firstly, I am not sure what the innovative contribution of this research is. The authors apply the VUCA meter approach to understand if it can support the conventional risk identification process. However at lines 157- 159, the authors write: “The four components of VUCA are defined based on Bennett's and Lemoine’s [6] discussions and definition in their article from 2014. Bennett and Lemoine define each part carefully, as well as how to address them, and give clear examples to explain. Each part must be addressed individually since they require a unique response”. In view of this, what is the advancement brought forward by the authors? I think this should be clearer. Or, in any case, the authors need to clarify in lines 48-51. A great point. We see now that it can be interpreted that B&L have forwarded a similar method. However, this is not the case. The authors used the semantics presented in the B&L paper to develop the VUCA meter. So the only connection between the VUCA meter and the work of B&L is the application of vocabulary and semantics. The contribution of this paper is the VUCA meter and the consolidation of that it is a useful to compensate a traditional approach.
2. In the introduction, I think it would be better to first introduce the general problem on which the authors focus their research, then to dwell on the presentation of the case study. We have rearranged the text a bit to meet this observation.

3. The literature review can be improved with more recent contributions. To mention just a few:

   • Mikkelsen, M.F.; Marnewick, C.; Klein, K. On Stupidity in Project Management—A critical reflection of PM in a VUCA world. J. Mod. Proj. Manag. 2020, 8, 2
   • Mack O., Jungen M. (2016) Program Management in VUCA Environments: Theoretical and Pragmatical Thoughts on a Systemic Management of Projects and Programs. In: Mack O., Khare A., Krämer A., Burgartz T. (eds) Managing in a VUCA World. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16889-0_3.
   • Some new references have been added to the paper.
4. On lines 255-256, the authors write: The conventional method for risk identification delivered a total of 52 risk factors whereas 119 risk factors were obtained using the VUCA method, see Figure 1”. However, it is not clear how 52 risk factors were obtained in the first case and 119 in the second. In my opinion this passage needs to be clarified because it is a fundamental part of the work. We have improved the methodology section to address this remark. Furthermore, we added some pictures in the appendix for further clarification.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors modified the article and supplemented them, which increased its level. However, there are still a few shortcomings that should be addressed:

1. Literature review - it would be good to add statements a few more several scientific papers or professional publications , so that the authors prove a quality review.
2. Results - lines 339-340 (This indicates the need to improve the risk assessment process, eg by instructing risk assessors on the importance of accurately formulating the risk context.): these claims should also be supported by claims made by other authors, such as:

• Hudakova, M .; Buganova, K .; Dvorský, J. Increasing the integration of practical activities into higher education in risk management in Slovakia, Proceedings ICERI2017, 2017, p. 996-1003.

3. Discussion - authors should add more than one source.
4. There are also some formal errors in the article that need to be corrected:

• style of tables and use of literature is not entirely according to the "Guidelines for authors",
• Blank line 271,
• in line 174, add Appendix A.

Author Response

Dear reviewer.

Thank you for the useful comments and observations. Below in italic are our responses.

1. Literature review - it would be good to add statements a few more several scientific papers or professional publications , so that the authors prove a quality review. We have added more references to support the LR.
2.  
   1. Results - lines 339-340 (This indicates the need to improve the risk assessment process, eg by instructing risk assessors on the importance of accurately formulating the risk context.): these claims should also be supported by claims made by other authors, such as:
   • Hudakova, M .; Buganova, K .; Dvorský, J. Increasing the integration of practical activities into higher education in risk management in Slovakia, Proceedings ICERI2017, 2017, p. 996-1003. This is correct. we studied this paper and have included it in the list of references. 
3. Discussion - authors should add more than one source. We have added several new references to address this comment.
4. 3. There are also some formal errors in the article that need to be corrected:
   • style of tables and use of literature is not entirely according to the "Guidelines for authors",
   • Blank line 271,
   • in line 174, add Appendix A. This has been corrected. Furthermore, the text will be proofread as appliccable.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have answered each comment/question carefully and in detail.

I suggest paying attention to typing errors (see for example, (Cyril and Taleb [13], line 88)). Or, on the same line, the authors write: . Taleb [12], but reference [12] refers to "The Black Swan: Second Edition: The Impact of the Highly Improbable: With a new section: 'On Robustness and Fragility' (Uncertain) Paperback - 11 May, Random house".  

Based on this, I only recommend a careful re-reading of the article. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer.

Thank you for the useful comments. The paper will be proof-read as applicable,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf