The methodology of the Logical Framework with a Risk Management Approach to Improve the Sustainability in the International Development Projects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is some excellent work.  I am quite impressed. 

I would delete this statement:

Between 1970 and 1971, the LFA was tested in 30 USAID projects. The next organization to apply it was the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), in 1974

I would insert the 'green' words  as follows and delete 'red' :

Frequently and very simply, risks are divided into internal risks (to the project itself) and external risks.

I would delete the 'red' words:

However, and although The PMD Pro guide [2] devotes a chapter to Risk Management, the scarce literature dedicated to PM in IDP hardly devotes any attention to it, except for Couillard et al. [8], and Ika and Lytvynov [10], who propose adding risks in the Logical Framework Matrix (LFM). 

The following Acronym does not need to be spelled out at this point as it has been introduced before:

3. Results and discussion
The methodology of the Logical Framework with a Risk Management Approach
(LFRMA) responds to the need contrasted with professionals, through the LFA questionnaire, to introduce elements of the Risk Management into the methodology par excellence 211
in development cooperation interventions, the LFA. 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, they help us to improve.

All have been answered in attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In general, after reading the manuscript, I recommend the authors review the content in order to answer following question:

1.- Where in the article can I see clearly and precisely the differences between LFA and LFRMA processes?

2.- What are the improvements and innovations of the LFRMA model?

3.- Is the new LFRMA model applicable to any industrial sector?

4.- Are there any limitations?.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, they help us to improve.

All have been answered in attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to thanks the authors for their answer to my question, however there are several missing topics already mentioned in my first review and not covered in this new release of the article.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

We apologize for the misunderstanding but we didn’t realize about this file attached with comments and we only answers the questions shown on the platform. Thank you for your additional comments, we proceed now to answer them one by one. We have made changes to the document considering them, and when we don´t agree with them we explain them here (in attachment).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx