Decision Factors for Remote Work Adoption: Advantages, Disadvantages, Driving Forces and Challenges

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

comments in pdf

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your review of our paper. We have answered each of your points below.

[Reviewers] – Question regarding the fifth filter

[Authors] – Thank you for pointing this gap. We forgot to include the description of the fifth filter. It was added above Figure 2.

[Reviewers] – More context on the interviews process.

[Authors] – We have added more information about the interviews process above section 4.1. Plus, we have included Appendix A to share more details regarding interviewees’ profile.

[Reviewers] – Representative sample of interviews

[Authors] – Regarding the number of interviews necessary in qualitative research, we followed Myers (2013) who argue that there is not a specific number established. It depends on the research question. Plus, according to Marshall et. Al.  (2013) 20 interviews is a significant amount for this type of study. Even if it is a convenient sampling, a mix of different participants according to gender, type of organization, culture, role, education was selected to reduce contextual bias (Dube & Pare, 2003). We have included Appendix A to share more details regarding interviewees’ profile.

Dube, L., & Pare, G. (2003). Rigor in Information Systems Positivist Case Research: Current Practices, Trends, and Recommendations. MIS Quarterly, 27(4), 597–636. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036550

Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A., & Fontenot, R. (2013). Does Sample Size Matter in Qualitative Research?: A Review of Qualitative Interviews in is Research. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 54(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2013.11645667

Myers, M.D.: Qualitative Research in Business and Management. SAGE Publications Ltd (2013)

[Reviewers] – Table labels.

[Authors] – Apologies. We have submitted the document with the correct labels. Not sure what may have happened. We have corrected it.

[Reviewers] – References outdated and incorrectly presented

[Authors] – The SLR was performed in the middle of last year. We understand that some studies may have been published meanwhile. However, it is difficult to keep a SLR constantly 100% updated. Since we follow the rigorous SLR methodology we are convinced that the mains studies were selected regardless the date. All references were revised and completed.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

These are my comments regarding the manuscript entitled Decision Factors for Remote Work Adoption: A Strategic Perspective

The references style is mixed, sometimes the authors use numbers, in other cases the (e.g. [12],[13]), in other cases APA style.

In some cases the references are not correctly inserted. For example, row 22 “Due to globalization (A. J. Nathan & Scobell, 2012; Sundin, 2008) [..] (the authors are referencing “globalization”?)or row 48 “However, (Mohajan, 2019) more recent studies (Guinalíu & Jordán, 2016; Mohajan, 2019) point RW as a complex domain [..]” (the authors are referencing “however”?).

From the title, the authors suggest a strategic perspective. However, I cannot find anything strategic about the way they approach RW. They should explain their choice for the title. Moreover, the title itself is unfortunately chosen: why decision factors?

Abstract should be rewritten, proofreading is necessary (e.g. “to evaluate and demonstrate the artefact [..]”).

In the Introduction section, it is not “former literature” but previous or prior. The introduction should present the structure of the paper, also. The second research question has no sense: “RQ2: How do the RW decision factors influence each other?” What means influence each other? What is, in this case, the dependent variable?

I am puzzled that there is no literature review section. After introduction, the paper continues with the research methodology.

The research methodology section is trivial. It generally describes the Design Science Research (DSR), but nothing about the study itself. I do not see the need for a separate section 3. Design and Development, it should be included in the previous one.

Overall, the SLR should be better presented. What is the reason for including papers only after 2000? This should be explained. What software was used for SLR?

No explanation is provided regarding how the concepts are related. Nowadays, there are software packages specifically designed for SRL which identify how various concepts relates to others. In the 3.1.2 section, nothing even resembling this is presented. The positive and negative influence has to be explained since it is not backed by the data, only the authors’ claims.

What means RW professionals? What makes an individual an RW professional? As far as I know, there is no professional certification in the field.

I am puzzled that no control variables were used. The industry is compulsory, since there are industries were propensity for RW is higher while in others is absent. So, mixing industries without a minimal statistical test regarding the composition and bias of the sample may significantly alter the results.

From the results presentation (e.g. “After the author compiled these data in Table 10, we can see that there is only one common advantage, besides work life balance, between the ones found in literature and those reported by interviewees: costs reduction.”. So, the respondents were asked different questions that the results of SLR? What is the reason? I was expecting that the qualitative phase to validate or not the items identified in SLR. Otherwise, what was the reason for SLR?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your review of our paper. We have answered each of your points below.

[Reviewers] – The references style is mixed, sometimes the authors use numbers, in other cases the (e.g. [12],[13]), in other cases APA style.

[Authors] – We reviewed all the references and included in a new style following the standard [12,13]. The Mendeley software was used to generate the references.

[Reviewers] – In some cases the references are not correctly inserted. For example, row 22 “Due to globalization (A. J. Nathan & Scobell, 2012; Sundin, 2008) [..] (the authors are referencing “globalization”?)or row 48 “However, (Mohajan, 2019) more recent studies (Guinalíu & Jordán, 2016; Mohajan, 2019) point RW as a complex domain [..]” (the authors are referencing “however”?).

[Authors] – The references were removed.

[Reviewers] – From the title, the authors suggest a strategic perspective. However, I cannot find anything strategic about the way they approach RW. They should explain their choice for the title. Moreover, the title itself is unfortunately chosen: why decision factors?

[Authors] – The strategic perspective relies on the fact that it is important for organization to be aware of what they may expect to face during and after RW adoption. This may shape organizations’ initiatives and focus. Therefore, such concepts like advantages/disadvantages/driving forces/challenges are important inputs for decision makers fulfil or shape organizations’ strategy. Nevertheless, we have changed the title and reinforce this rational in introduction section.

[Reviewers] – Abstract should be rewritten, proofreading is necessary (e.g. “to evaluate and demonstrate the artefact [..]”).

[Authors] – The abstract was rewritten and the English entirely revised.

[Reviewers] – In the Introduction section, it is not “former literature” but previous or prior. The introduction should present the structure of the paper, also. The second research question has no sense: “RQ2: How do the RW decision factors influence each other?” What means influence each other? What is, in this case, the dependent variable?

[Authors] – The typo was corrected. The structure of the paper included at the end of Introduction section. Moreover, RQ2 was tuned and explanations included at the end of Introduction section, before the paper structure.

[Reviewers] – I am puzzled that there is no literature review section. After introduction, the paper continues with the research methodology.

[Authors] – A Literature Review Section was included (Section 2). We had this information but we decided do not include it in the first version for space limitations.

[Reviewers] – The research methodology section is trivial. It generally describes the Design Science Research (DSR), but nothing about the study itself. I do not see the need for a separate section 3. Design and Development, it should be included in the previous one.

[Authors] – We do agree. Section 3 was removed and included in Section 2.

[Reviewers] – Overall, the SLR should be better presented. What is the reason for including papers only after 2000? This should be explained. What software was used for SLR? No explanation is provided regarding how the concepts are related. Nowadays, there are software packages specifically designed for SRL which identify how various concepts relates to others. In the 3.1.2 section, nothing even resembling this is presented. The positive and negative influence has to be explained since it is not backed by the data, only the authors’ claims.

[Authors] – It is hard to find studies on remote work before 2000 and the existing ones will be probably outdated with more than 20 years of investigation and technology evolution. Therefore, we decided to include the filter of 2000. We have used Atlas.ti to support the analysis. We have included references supporting the relations along the document.

[Reviewers] – What means RW professionals? What makes an individual an RW professional? As far as I know, there is no professional certification in the field.

[Authors] – By “professionals”, in this investigation, we mean a human resource with experience in RW. We have corrected it. Thank you.

[Reviewers] – I am puzzled that no control variables were used. The industry is compulsory, since there are industries were propensity for RW is higher while in others is absent. So, mixing industries without a minimal statistical test regarding the composition and bias of the sample may significantly alter the results.

[Authors] – This study as almost all in literature explore this issue in a transversal approach. We do agree that there are some factors that may influence the RW adoption as you refer (type of industry for example). We have reinforced this issue in future work and limitation sections.

[Reviewers] – From the results presentation (e.g. “After the author compiled these data in Table 10, we can see that there is only one common advantage, besides work life balance, between the ones found in literature and those reported by interviewees: costs reduction.”. So, the respondents were asked different questions that the results of SLR? What is the reason? I was expecting that the qualitative phase to validate or not the items identified in SLR. Otherwise, what was the reason for SLR?

[Authors] – First interviewees were asked about each concept (advantages/disadvantages/driving forces/challenges) without any clue of SLR output. Then, the list was showed, and interviewees asked to validate it. This was done to promote the collection of further insights, and somehow to validate if current literature was complete or some critical aspects missing. That is way we have in table 8 “before informed” and “after informed”. We have added this information in the document above Figure 3.

Reviewer 3 Report

This research, at first glance, requires improvements.

1. A logical structure of the text is needed in the Introduction part. The authors must decide which form of notation they choose for references. Authors must present the characteristics of the term Remote work. In the research are identified 3 aspects that contributed to the introduction of RW respectively globalization, the informatization of industries, or Governments legislative support. The authors can extend these criteria from the point of view of the health crisis.
2. In the methodology part, should it be explained why the SLR is a proper methodology? Figure 1 must be redesigned. The presented diagram lacks the logical connections between the identified blocks.
3. The authors must explain why they chose such an approach. What were the theoretical considerations, what does such an analysis offer in practice? We searched in major databases, such as ACM, IEEE, Springer and Google Scholar between September and October of 2020, for the following research string was used: (Remote OR Virtual) AND Work.
4. Authors should place in the body of the text those tables and figures that are needed. The other tables can be attached as an annex. The essence of the research is lost by introducing them excessively. Also, the tables must be reorganized so that the information presented is more harmonious.      

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your review of our paper. We have answered each of your points below.

[Reviewers] – A logical structure of the text is needed in the Introduction part. The authors must decide which form of notation they choose for references. Authors must present the characteristics of the term Remote work. In the research are identified 3 aspects that contributed to the introduction of RW respectively globalization, the informatization of industries, or Governments legislative support. The authors can extend these criteria from the point of view of the health crisis.

[Authors] – Notation was corrected. The reference to the current crisis was also added.

[Reviewers] – In the methodology part, should it be explained why the SLR is a proper methodology? Figure 1 must be redesigned. The presented diagram lacks the logical connections between the identified blocks.

[Authors] – We have added the explanation about why SLR was chosen. The diagram was corrected.

[Reviewers] – The authors must explain why they chose such an approach. What were the theoretical considerations, what does such an analysis offer in practice? We searched in major databases, such as ACM, IEEE, Springer and Google Scholar between September and October of 2020, for the following research string was used: (Remote OR Virtual) AND Work.

[Authors] – More information was added at the end of section 1 and in the section of methodology.

[Reviewers] – Authors should place in the body of the text those tables and figures that are needed. The other tables can be attached as an annex. The essence of the research is lost by introducing them excessively. Also, the tables must be reorganized so that the information presented is more harmonious.      

[Authors] – Thank you for your opinion. We do believe that all tables and figures are somehow useful to support the main phases of our research. Can you tell us which figure or table you think should be in appendixes instead of the main body?

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments
1. At the end of the last paragraph of Introduction section (after purpose and research questions of the study) please add a brief description of the paper structure.
2. In the line 67 of page 2, the authors mention that the Design Science Research Method consists of six steps but in the Figure 1 that follows they present 5 steps. In the same time according the content of steps 2 and 3 of Figure 1, I cannot find obvious differences between the two steps (both need Systematic Literature Review and it is difficult to be separating) as they are presented in the Figure.
3.Because the paper contents a large number of Tables and Figures, I suggest somehow to merge the Figures 1 and 2.
4.Missing the Table 3 (from Table 2 line 103, page 3 the next Table is with number 4, line 184 page 5).
5.The subsection 3.1.2. which related with the second research question (How does RW key concepts relate - RQ2), it is 'in the air'. The authors describe a large number of relationships between RW concepts without to present citations (if based on Literature Review) or arguments if based on another way. The Figure 6 (line 208, page 9) presents these RW concepts relation but without to know, how they located?
6. From Figure 2 in page 3 we are going straight to the Figure 6 in page 9. Where are the rest Figures (4 and 5) between them? I found finally the Figure 4 after the Figure 6, but still missing the Figure 5. After Figure 4 in the page 17 there is the Figure 10. Please fix all these.
7.Please, inform me why the qualitative research interview was done with a sample of 129 professionals (109 for RQ1 and 20 for RQ2 evaluation). By which method calculated the size of participants in the research? Is this number representative? The results of this quality research can be generalized?
8.There is no exists Discussion section. In my opinion the authors must be add a Discussion part (maybe into Conclusions section) where they will compare their results with the results of relevant or similar studies of literature review or by studies international oriented.
9.In the Conclusions section also there are only repetitions of the study' results regarding the two research questions. In my opinion in this section must be presented general conclusions and proposals.
10.Even if the research developed in 2020 the year of Pandemic of Covid-19, an unpredictable fact who straight related with the remote work, there is no any mention in the body of the paper, except at the end in the subsection 5.2. 'Future Work'. In my opinion the authors had the chance to add something new to the literature who related with the remote work and the unpredictable threats and let it go away. In my opinion also, it is a serious weakness of the paper that the research did not touch this issue.
11.The author/s should also rework their manuscript properly correcting some errors regarding the grammatical, syntax and numbering (language editing).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your review of our paper. We have answered each of your points below.

[Reviewers] – At the end of the last paragraph of Introduction section (after purpose and research questions of the study) please add a brief description of the paper structure.

[Authors] – The description was included.

[Reviewers] – In the line 67 of page 2, the authors mention that the Design Science Research Method consists of six steps but in the Figure 1 that follows they present 5 steps. In the same time according the content of steps 2 and 3 of Figure 1, I cannot find obvious differences between the two steps (both need Systematic Literature Review and it is difficult to be separating) as they are presented in the Figure.

[Authors] – Thank you for your feedback. Indeed, we joined Evaluation and Demonstration. Given the nature of some investigations it is usual to perform the demonstration during the evaluation. It was the case. We have added that explanation above Figure 1.

[Reviewers] – Because the paper contents a large number of Tables and Figures, I suggest somehow to merge the Figures 1 and 2.

[Authors] – In our honest opinion that may be difficult without losing information while keeping it readable. For that reason, we have decided to keep it separated. But if you really believe this is critical, we may try to find a way of do it.

[Reviewers] – Missing the Table 3 (from Table 2 line 103, page 3 the next Table is with number 4, line 184 page 5).

[Authors] – We have corrected and revised all the Table and Figure labels.

[Reviewers] – The subsection 3.1.2. which related with the second research question (How does RW key concepts relate - RQ2), it is 'in the air'. The authors describe a large number of relationships between RW concepts without to present citations (if based on Literature Review) or arguments if based on another way. The Figure 6 (line 208, page 9) presents these RW concepts relation but without to know, how they located?

[Authors] – We have included references along the document to support the elicited relations.

[Reviewers] – From Figure 2 in page 3 we are going straight to the Figure 6 in page 9. Where are the rest Figures (4 and 5) between them? I found finally the Figure 4 after the Figure 6, but still missing the Figure 5. After Figure 4 in the page 17 there is the Figure 10. Please fix all these.
[Authors] – The labels were corrected.

[Reviewers] – Please, inform me why the qualitative research interview was done with a sample of 129 professionals (109 for RQ1 and 20 for RQ2 evaluation). By which method calculated the size of participants in the research? Is this number representative? The results of this quality research can be generalized?
[Authors] – Regarding the number of interviews necessary in qualitative research, we followed Myers (2013) who argue that there is not a specific number established. It depends on the research question. Plus, according to Marshall et. Al.  (2013) 20 interviews is a significant amount for this type of study. Even if it is a convenient sampling, a mix of different participants according to gender, type of organization, culture, role, education was selected to reduce contextual bias (Dube & Pare, 2003). We have included Appendix A to share more details regarding interviewees’ profile.

Dube, L., & Pare, G. (2003). Rigor in Information Systems Positivist Case Research: Current Practices, Trends, and Recommendations. MIS Quarterly, 27(4), 597–636. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036550

Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A., & Fontenot, R. (2013). Does Sample Size Matter in Qualitative Research?: A Review of Qualitative Interviews in is Research. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 54(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2013.11645667

Myers, M.D.: Qualitative Research in Business and Management. SAGE Publications Ltd (2013)

[Reviewers] – There is no exists Discussion section. In my opinion the authors must be add a Discussion part (maybe into Conclusions section) where they will compare their results with the results of relevant or similar studies of literature review or by studies international oriented.
[Authors] – We have discussed the comparison with literature review in a new paragraph in Conclusion section.

[Reviewers] – In the Conclusions section also there are only repetitions of the study' results regarding the two research questions. In my opinion in this section must be presented general conclusions and proposals.

[Authors] – We have reorganized the conclusion section with a clear vision of conclusion and proposals as requested.

[Reviewers] – Even if the research developed in 2020 the year of Pandemic of Covid-19, an unpredictable fact who straight related with the remote work, there is no any mention in the body of the paper, except at the end in the subsection 5.2. 'Future Work'. In my opinion the authors had the chance to add something new to the literature who related with the remote work and the unpredictable threats and let it go away. In my opinion also, it is a serious weakness of the paper that the research did not touch this issue.

[Authors] – Thank you for your feedback. That was our intention. We have reinforced the COVID reference in introduction and conclusion section. It should be noted that a considerable part of the interviewees already performed RW before pandemic covid19.

[Reviewers] – The author/s should also rework their manuscript properly correcting some errors regarding the grammatical, syntax and numbering (language editing).

[Authors] – The document was entirely revised.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The research has significantly increased in quality after correction fulfilled by Authors. Now it is more scientifically sound and well-structured. Besides, technical inconsistencies like empty columns in Tables and other visual gaps are improved.

However, the research is still minor revision before publishing.

• In the section Literature review, which is represented mainly in form of comparative Table, some important findings for further Authors’ research are highlighted. However, there are inconsistencies in the description of the Table in text (But few or none attempted to…. – see note and highlights in the text) and in the column 3 of the Table 1 – here we see that no one relation is explored. Besides, this column has no sense - information the same. It should be removed and described in the text above more clearly.
• The heading of the Table 1 should be on the topю
• Figure 1. Diagram of the performed DSR methodology – should be improved. It concerns both technical quality (inappropriate size of cell with step 4, incomprehensive links with cell on the top – why some of them are linked when “Demonstration and evaluation” is connected via straight line, not arrow as others?) and essence. It is unclear why communication process is doing only in form of research articles. Is it really methodology of your science research of remote work? If yes, it should be explained more widely. Maybe, it would be more comprehensive if Authors just provide their steps of research. This comment, except for the technical notes, is not obligatory, but I hope it can help to visualize stages of your work easier and without unnecessary misunderstandings.
• The technical quality of the Figure is poor, the font in cells is impossible to read. Try to visualize it better – similar to the Figure 3.
• In the light of the research, further investigations in this field should be indicated in Conclusion section regarding the possibilities of current human resources management problems solving – see comment in the text.
• Authors should check the formatting of References (see lines 682 - 684).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We addressed all your comments in the paper where are highlighted in red. 

We updated the figure 3 and now it is with a better quality. We included the information in further investigations as well as corrected the reference. 

Thank you very much for your call. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

You included in the revised version all my comments and recommendations. However, I urge you to perform a thorough English proofreading since there are still many typos.

Author Response

We perform a proofreading and reviewed the typos. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors improved the research. The information is presented harmoniously providing a logical thread to the research.

Author Response

The document was revised . 

Reviewer 4 Report

No comments

Author Response

The document was revised .