Business Process-Organizational Structure (BP-OS) Performance Measurement Model and Problem-Solving Guidelines for Efficient Organizational Management in an Ontact Work Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article contains a very clearly and detailed model for calculating the total task cycle time.

My main problem with this is that the paper does not use any real data to verify the correctness of the procedure. Predetermined values are inserted into the created model and we get the expected results. As a result, the model is a scalar product of positive input values, so if we increase them, it is obvious that we will receive larger values. (Tab 2)

In Chapter 5.1, the authors propose to eliminate the entire managerial level from the structure of the organization. The question, however, is whether it is really possible to do it this way. By removing this level, it may be impossible for senior managers to replace their activity, and the delay may increase, which is not accounted for by the model.

For chapter 5.2. I assume the same problem, the processes are described only in general (here I am only guessing what is probably in the diagram, because the text is not readable even at the maximum resolution), and the proposed sreamlining of processes is actually just a transformation of two separate tasks into one, which should contain all steps from both. Theoretically, there will be a minimal delay reduction, caused by the transfer of results and allocation to another performer. Again, we get results that are predetermined only by the model settings.

Diagrams showing the structure (fig. 6) and processes (fig. 8) are completely unreadable. Figure 10 is a bit better for this with readability, but I still suggest its modification.

I suggest editing the article in two possible directions. The first would be to use actual measured data and analyze it. In that case, however, a major part of the article would be changed. Second option would probably be, using the already calculated results, to focus at least on a more detailed determination of the shape of the dependence and the determination of the delay relationship on the setting of the input parameters of the model. These relationships could turn out to be interesting.

 

Author Response

Thank you so much for reading our paper and for your meaningful comments and suggestions. Your comments and suggestions were sufficient to advance this paper. We responded point-by-point to comments. Please check the attached files.

[Point 1]: My main problem with this is that the paper does not use any real data to verify the correctness of the procedure. Predetermined values are inserted into the created model and we get the expected results. As a result, the model is a scalar product of positive input values, so if we increase them, it is obvious that we will receive larger values. (Tab 2)
- Response 1: Thank you very much for this comment! The data used for the enterprise simulation in this study was set based on the standard working hours (maximum 8 hours) in accordance with the Labor Standards Act of South Korea. This is not as much as real data, but it is set enough to verify the feasibility of the model presented in this study. Of course, we recognize that performing simulations using real data is a way to more clearly validate the model presented in the study. Therefore, we are currently collecting data for enterprise simulation focusing on IT startups and large enterprises that have transitioned to the ontact work environment the fastest. In the future research, we will be able to clearly verify the model presented through real data. In the conclusion part, the explanation of the future work was insufficient, and to reflect this, the content was added to Chapter 4.2(Enterprise Simulation in an Ontact Work Environment: Case Study) and Chapter 6 (Conclusion). Please see below.

[Point 2]: In Chapter 5.1, the authors propose to eliminate the entire managerial level from the structure of the organization. The question, however, is whether it is really possible to do it this way. By removing this level, it may be impossible for senior managers to replace their activity, and the delay may increase, which is not accounted for by the model.
- Response 2: Thank you for this comment. It is clear that removing a layer that constitutes the organizational structure is rather radical. Practically, it is difficult for any organization to eliminate the entire managerial level in an instant. Removal of the lowest-level managers does not mean the removal of organizational members, but rather unnecessary changes to the reporting system in the organizational structure. The explanation in Chapter 5.1 was insufficient, and the manuscript in Chapter 5.1 and Figure 6 have been modified to reflect your comments.

[Point 3]: For chapter 5.2. I assume the same problem, the processes are described only in general (here I am only guessing what is probably in the diagram, because the text is not readable even at the maximum resolution), and the proposed sreamlining of processes is actually just a transformation of two separate tasks into one, which should contain all steps from both. Theoretically, there will be a minimal delay reduction, caused by the transfer of results and allocation to another performer. Again, we get results that are predetermined only by the model settings.
- Response 3: Thank you for this comment. We reviewed Chapter 5.2 and Figure 8 again, and decided that the explanation of the simulation was insufficient. The manuscript in Chapter 5.2 and Figure 8 have been modified to reflect your comments.

[Point 4]: Diagrams showing the structure (fig. 6) and processes (fig. 8) are completely unreadable. Figure 10 is a bit better for this with readability, but I still suggest its modification.
- Response 4: Thank you for this comment. We have determined that figures 6, 8 and 10 are not readable and need to be corrected as per your suggestion. In order to improve readability and accurately convey only the necessary information, the shape and size of figures 6, 8, and 10, and some information have been modified. Modified figures 6 and 8 can be seen from the responses of Points 2 and 3 above.

[Point 5] I suggest editing the article in two possible directions. The first would be to use actual measured data and analyze it. In that case, however, a major part of the article would be changed. Second option would probably be, using the already calculated results, to focus at least on a more detailed determination of the shape of the dependence and the determination of the delay relationship on the setting of the input parameters of the model. These relationships could turn out to be interesting.
- Response 5: Thank you very much for this suggestion! Both of your suggestions are excellent, and We think they are sufficient improvement directions to increase the value of this thesis. As your first suggestion, validating the model using real data is collecting survey data from IT startups and large companies that have been quickly reflected in the ontact work environment. It is difficult to reflect immediately, but in future research, the model presented in this study can be more clearly verified using real data. Your second suggestion is also a very interesting topic. By elucidating the relationship between the delay factors, the BP-OS model can be clearly reconstructed. We will accept your suggestion and use structural equations to check and utilize the relationship between factors in future research. This will greatly contribute to establishing a BP-OS model. To reflect your two suggestions, Chapter 4.2(Enterprise Simulation in an Ontact Work Environment: Case Study) and Chapter 6(Conclusion) have been added. It is the same as Response 1.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper titled "Business Process-Organizational Structure (BP-OS) Performance Measurement Model and Problem-Solving Guidelines for The paper on Efficient Organizational Management in an Ontact Work Environment is very good. After I read the paper, I felt very satisfied. The innovation point of the paper is established, the workload of the paper is full, and the research method has been properly used. I have no opinion and agree to publish the paper in our journal.

Author Response

Thank you so much for reading our paper and for your meaningful comments and suggestions. Your comments and suggestions were sufficient to advance this paper. We responded point-by-point to comments. Please check the attached files.

[Point 1]: This paper titled "Business Process-Organizational Structure (BP-OS) Performance Measurement Model and Problem-Solving Guidelines for The paper on Efficient Organizational Management in an Ontact Work Environment is very good. After I read the paper, I felt very satisfied. The innovation point of the paper is established, the workload of the paper is full, and the research method has been properly used. I have no opinion and agree to publish the paper in our journal.
- Response 1: Thank you very much for this comment! We have rechecked the reference part. And, it was decided to add previous studies to support this paper. Previous studies have been added to the manuscript and 'Reference' section, and the added content can be found below.

<Introduction>
* Park, H.W. 'Corona holiday'... Courier 30%, industrial accidents 312% yonhapnewstv. Available online: https://www.yonhapnewstv.co.kr/news/MYH20210921001000038?did=1825m (accessed on 21 September 2021)
* Lee, B., Lee, C., Choi, I., & Kim, J. (2022). Analyzing Determinants of Job Satisfaction Based on Two-Factor Theory. Sustainability, 14(19), 12557.
* Lee, S. H., Do, H. O., & Seo, K. D. (2011). A study on management plans for activating of smart work. Journal of Digital Convergence, 9(4), 245-252.
* Kwon, M.; Jeon, S.H. Why permit telework? Exploring the determinants of California city gevernments’ decisions to permit telework. Public Pers. Manag. 2017, 46, 239–262.
* Bucea-Manea-Tonis, R.; Prokop, V.; Ilic, D.; Gurgu, E.; Bucea-Manea-Tonis, R.; Braicu, C.; Moanta, A. The relationship between Eco-innovation and smart working as support for sustainable management. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1437.
* Choi, H., Lee, J. Y., Choi, Y., Juan, Y., & Lee, C. K. (2022). How to Enhance Smart Work Effectiveness as a Sustainable HRM Practice in the Tourism Industry. Sustainability, 14(4), 2218.
* Han, S., Shin, J., Lee, S., & Park, J. (2022). Activation of Ontact Research Using Science & Technology Knowledge Infrastructure ScienceON.
* Šikýˇr, M. Determinants of employee performance: How to achieve sustained competitive advantage. In Proceedings of the 5th International Days of Statistics and Economics, Prague, Czech Republic, 22–23 September 2011; pp. 606–614. Available online: http://msed.vse.cz/files/2011/Sikyr.pdf (accessed on 17 June 2021).
* Palm, K.; Bergman, A.; Rosengren, C. Toward more proactive sustainable human resource management practices? A study on stress due to the ICT-Mediated integration of work and private life. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8303.
* Chams, N.; García-Blandón, J. On the importance of sustainable human resource management for the adoption of sustainable development goals. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019, 140, 219–226.
* Wikhamn, W. Innovation, sustainable HRM and customer satisfaction. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 76, 102–110.
* Ullah, Z.; Álvarez-Otero, S.; Sulaiman, M.; Sial, M.; Ahmad, N.; Scholz, M.; Omhand, K. Achieving Organizational Social Sustainability through Electronic Performance Appraisal Systems: The Moderating Influence of Transformational Leadership. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5611.

<Related Work>
* Boell, S.K.; Cecez-Kecmanovic, D.; Campbell, J. Telework paradoxes and practices: The importance of the nature of work. New Technol. Work Employ. 2016, 31, 114–131.
* Caillier, J.G. Does satisfaction with family-friendly programs reduce turnover? A panel study conducted in U.S. federal agencies. Public Pers. Manag. 2016, 45, 284–307.
* Kelliher, C.; Anderson, D. Doing more with less? Flexible working practices and the intensification of work. Hum. Relat. 2010, 63, 83–106

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

It is desirable to describe figures 8 and 10 more clearly. Graphically, not everything can be seen (some elements are not clear). Need to improve here

Author Response

Thank you so much for reading our paper and for your meaningful comments and suggestions. Your comments and suggestions were sufficient to advance this paper. We responded point-by-point to comments. Please check the attached files.

[Point 1]: It is desirable to describe figures 8 and 10 more clearly. Graphically, not everything can be seen (some elements are not clear). Need to improve here
- Response 1: Thank you so much for this comment! We reviewed Figure 8 and Figure 10 again, and judged that the explanation of the simulation was insufficient. Figures 8 and 10 have been modified to explain more clearly and to accurately convey the necessary information by increasing readability. The shape and size of figures, some information were changed, and the manuscript describing the figures was modified.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

I think that this paper is very clear and detailed model for calculating the total task cycle time.

 

However, there are some minor revisons in the paper. 

1. Data Analysis.

- I wondering whether to use real data or not to assess the correctness of the procedure. Thus, you must check the dataset and check table 2 again.

 

2. Typo & unreadable

- There are some typo in the manuscript. So, you must check every typo again. Especially, diagrams showing the structure (fig. 6) and processes (fig. 8) are completely unreadable. So, you must revise or change the figures. 

 

3. Reference

- You must check the reference part, and then add useful previous studies. 

Author Response

Thank you so much for reading our paper and for your meaningful comments and suggestions. Your comments and suggestions were sufficient to advance this paper. We responded point-by-point to comments. Please check the attached files.

[Point 1]: Data Analysis. I wondering whether to use real data or not to assess the correctness of the procedure. Thus, you must check the dataset and check table 2 again.
- Response 1: Thank you very much for this comment! The data used for the enterprise simulation in this study was set based on the standard working hours (maximum 8 hours) in accordance with the Labor Standards Act of South Korea. This is not as much as real data, but it is set enough to verify the feasibility of the model presented in this study. Of course, we recognize that performing simulations using real data is a way to more clearly validate the model presented in the study. Therefore, we are currently collecting data for enterprise simulation focusing on IT startups and large enterprises that have transitioned to the ontact work environment the fastest. In the future research, we will be able to clearly verify the model presented through real data. In the conclusion part, the explanation of the future work was insufficient, and to reflect this, the content was added to Chapter 4.2(Enterprise Simulation in an Ontact Work Environment: Case Study) and Chapter 6 (Conclusion).

[Point 2] 2. Typo & unreadable. There are some typo in the manuscript. So, you must check every typo again. Especially, diagrams showing the structure (fig. 6) and processes (fig. 8) are completely unreadable. So, you must revise or change the figures. 
- Response 2: Thank you for this comment. As per your suggestion, we checked the manuscript and found some typos. This was corrected immediately. We also recognized that the readability of Figures 6 and 8 was poor. Therefore, in order to improve the readability of Figures 6 and 8, the shape, size, and some information have been modified.

[Point 3] Reference. You must check the reference part, and then add useful previous studies. 
- Response 3: Thank you for this suggestion. As per your suggestion, we have rechecked the reference part. And, it was decided that the addition of previous studies that would provide excellent support for this paper was necessary. Previous studies have been added to the manuscript and 'Reference' section, and the added content can be found below.
<Introduction>
* Park, H.W. 'Corona holiday'... Courier 30%, industrial accidents 312% yonhapnewstv. Available online: https://www.yonhapnewstv.co.kr/news/MYH20210921001000038?did=1825m (accessed on 21 September 2021)
* Lee, B., Lee, C., Choi, I., & Kim, J. (2022). Analyzing Determinants of Job Satisfaction Based on Two-Factor Theory. Sustainability, 14(19), 12557.
* Lee, S. H., Do, H. O., & Seo, K. D. (2011). A study on management plans for activating of smart work. Journal of Digital Convergence, 9(4), 245-252.
* Kwon, M.; Jeon, S.H. Why permit telework? Exploring the determinants of California city gevernments’ decisions to permit telework. Public Pers. Manag. 2017, 46, 239–262.
* Bucea-Manea-Tonis, R.; Prokop, V.; Ilic, D.; Gurgu, E.; Bucea-Manea-Tonis, R.; Braicu, C.; Moanta, A. The relationship between Eco-innovation and smart working as support for sustainable management. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1437.
* Choi, H., Lee, J. Y., Choi, Y., Juan, Y., & Lee, C. K. (2022). How to Enhance Smart Work Effectiveness as a Sustainable HRM Practice in the Tourism Industry. Sustainability, 14(4), 2218.
* Han, S., Shin, J., Lee, S., & Park, J. (2022). Activation of Ontact Research Using Science & Technology Knowledge Infrastructure ScienceON.
* Šikýˇr, M. Determinants of employee performance: How to achieve sustained competitive advantage. In Proceedings of the 5th International Days of Statistics and Economics, Prague, Czech Republic, 22–23 September 2011; pp. 606–614. Available online: http://msed.vse.cz/files/2011/Sikyr.pdf (accessed on 17 June 2021).
* Palm, K.; Bergman, A.; Rosengren, C. Toward more proactive sustainable human resource management practices? A study on stress due to the ICT-Mediated integration of work and private life. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8303.
* Chams, N.; García-Blandón, J. On the importance of sustainable human resource management for the adoption of sustainable development goals. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019, 140, 219–226.
* Wikhamn, W. Innovation, sustainable HRM and customer satisfaction. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 76, 102–110.
* Ullah, Z.; Álvarez-Otero, S.; Sulaiman, M.; Sial, M.; Ahmad, N.; Scholz, M.; Omhand, K. Achieving Organizational Social Sustainability through Electronic Performance Appraisal Systems: The Moderating Influence of Transformational Leadership. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5611.

<Related Work>
* Boell, S.K.; Cecez-Kecmanovic, D.; Campbell, J. Telework paradoxes and practices: The importance of the nature of work. New Technol. Work Employ. 2016, 31, 114–131.
* Caillier, J.G. Does satisfaction with family-friendly programs reduce turnover? A panel study conducted in U.S. federal agencies. Public Pers. Manag. 2016, 45, 284–307.
* Kelliher, C.; Anderson, D. Doing more with less? Flexible working practices and the intensification of work. Hum. Relat. 2010, 63, 83–106.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The added comments regarding the limitations of the possibility to obtain and use real data solve most of my comments, and I believe that the authors will develop the topic further and verify the model in real operation over time.

The replaced images are much clearer in this form and the reader will find their way around them better.