Applying Process Mining: The Reality of a Software Development SME

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the paper is interesting. It is about process mining implementation in the software development process. However, some corrections and amendments are required for the improvement of the paper.

1) Please state the results of the study in the abstract.

2) The objective of this study is to compare the findings of a first improvement cycle from the Process Mining of a second project in a software development SME.   

- There is a lack of presentation of the results of the comparison between the first and second projects. It is good to have a comparison table to show the similarities and differences between the two projects.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed a topic of a challenge that organizations face is to extract data from information systems to know the reality of their processes in order to improve their efficiency. Similarities and differences between two projects were analyzed, based on the representation of their respective integrated models, traces and the interaction of activities with roles. They found that software development SMEs faced similar challenges as other SMEs, such as lack of documentation, file variability, and workforce displacement. The subject faced is very interesting, however, a few remarks should be made to improve the quality of the paper:

- The abstract requires improvement to clearly present the content of the paper.

- Add a paragraph in the introduction that clearly describes the contribution of this work.

- Figure 5 is not clear, please refine it

- Figure 8 is not clear and the writing in this figure is not legible. Please redraw this figure.

- In the references section: Add in references 5, 12 and 17 the date and place of each conference.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this study, the authors carried out an analysis based on the similarities and differences between the first project and the second project, the representation of the relevant integrated models, the traces and interaction of the activities with the roles. My evaluations about this project, which is about to expand the process mining of the first project, are as follows:

-The introduction part of the project should be rewritten according to the academic flow. Considering motivation, limitation and contribution hierarchy. Even though it is a continuation of the previous project, I think that this study should be written in a clear and detailed manner, on which issues it is proposed to address the deficiencies in the literature and what its added value is.

-In order to better understand the subject and clarify its relationship with process mining, a small section about the first project can be created and general information can be given there.

-Although the Methodology section is generally nice, the image quality of all figures,json expressions and petri networks needs to be rearranged.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Title: Applying Process Mining: the reality of a software development SME.

2. The abstract can be improved by mentioning the novelty of the proposed work clearly.

3. all the keywords should be in expanded form.

4. The quantitative, and qualitative improvements of the proposed work can be mentioned in the abstract.

5. The related work can be improved by citing more recent works.  

6. The Methodology can be enhanced by giving step by step process of the proposed work.  Give a detailed algorithm.

7. The clarity of All the Figures needs to be enhanced.

8. A detailed explanation is required in the results. 

9. The integrated model, in comparison to both projects,  give a graphical analysis.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on the comments made in the first study, the study has become capable of making more academic contributions with the relevant regulations. Congratulations.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions of the paper are ok.