The Priority of Factors of Building Government as a Platform with Analytic Hierarchy Process Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The current manuscript presents a thorough study for the use of Government as a Platform by means of Analytic Hierarchy Process Analysis. The topic in innovative and the authors provide an extensive analysis to support their proposals. Their findings are fully supported by appropriate methods and tools and their discussion is adequate. I suggest acceptance in its current form after the correction of figures 1 & 4 which need further editing in order to enhance their resolution
Author Response
|
Reviewer 1 comments |
Revised contents |
|
I suggest acceptance in its current form after the correction of figures 1 & 4 which need further editing in order to enhance their resolution |
- We changed all existing figures to clear figures. Overall article |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
see the annexed review report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
|
Reviewer 2 comments |
Revised contents |
|
First, page 1, line 44 talk about …… Many claims are made in the paper, that Gaap can contribute to solving these problems, but they are all made at an abstract level and do not clearly link to good problem analysis. |
- We added statements for the government crisis. P. 2 line 39 |
|
Secondly, …. Honestly, the literature review is not well structured and the reader completely gets loss when trying to find a clear answer on what is the message here |
- We added statements for platform and GaaP including characteristics and advantages. P. 3 Line 86 P. 5 Line 147 |
|
Thirdly, section 3 starts with explaining some aspects of the AHP method. It is not clear for me why this method is chosen, with what purpose and why this provides a relevant analysis….. |
- We added sentences with respect to the reason why we chose the AHP method and the limitations of AHP. P. 12 Line 374 - We added sentences about data collection and samples P. 13 Line 391 |
|
I also suggest enriching your view by making a case-based comparison of examples of GaaP |
- We added a new chapter of GaaP cases. P. 9 lin2 285~ |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The aim of the research is not clear from the abstract.
Given the time period, the provide references are relevant, recent, referenced correctly and the appropriate studies are included
Methods: The process of the topic section is clear
Results: The data presented is appropriate for quantitative research. However, the quality of figures and tables could be improved to help better convey the message.
Discussions and conclusions: The discussion is clear. However, the authors might want to address the following issues that would greatly improve the research:
- It is not clear in the beginning why “this study attempted to determine the priority of factors of GaaP by using Analytic Hierarchy Process 13 (AHP) methodology.”
- In research design, especially data collection and measurements, it may be essential to address the limitations of AHP as a methodology
- In the study's conclusions and implications, researchers might want also to draw attention to the limications of their research design. These become the basis for extending this research.
Author Response
|
Reviewer 3 comments |
Revised contents |
|
The aim of the research is not clear from the abstract. |
- Changed P.1 Line 19-26. |
|
Given the time period, the provide references are relevant, recent, referenced correctly and the appropriate studies are included |
- We added more recent literature on GaaP and the case of GaaP. P. 3 Line 89 P. 5 Line 147 P. 9 lin2 285 |
|
the quality of figures and tables could be improved to help better convey the message. |
- We changed all existing figures to clear figures. Overall article |
|
In research design, especially data collection and measurements, it may be essential to address the limitations of AHP as a methodology |
- We added sentences with respect to the reason why we chose the AHP method and the limitations of AHP. P. 12 Line 374 |
|
In the study's conclusions and implications, researchers might want also to draw attention to the limitations of their research design. These become the basis for extending this research. |
- We added sentences with respect to limitation of methodology in this study P. 22 Line 754 |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for improving the paper. In my first review I raised many questions, part of which have been answered in the improved draft. My first review expressed serious doubts about the framing of the study and the added value of the generated results. The changes in this draft did not take away all doubts, but I consider them as important improvements
The description of the governmental crisis is important for the general framing of the study, although I think that the link with the actual study remains at a very (too?) high level: e.g. how can trust improved, misuse avoided and access to and privacy of data organized well? The factors included in the AHP do not provide much detail on these issues, whereas from platform theory these are crucial for the success of such exchanges.
Further, the description of the cases is very informative, but they also show that much focus in practice is still put on more administrative services than on decision-supportive heuristics (which is presented in the introduction as the major problem). Digitizing and linking all types of data is a common practice in public governments nowadays, even to the level of a practice in certain countries that it generates negative power effects for its inhabitants. You can fill in the examples by your self. So, from that perspective the conclusions of the analysis make sense, but I do feel that a more critical discussion on these issues, that goes beyond the rather general labels that you use in the AHP, is needed and would have strongly enriched the paper. Hopefully the publication of the results will generate such discussion.
Finally, I think that your study is not yet a solid basis for formulating recommendations for building GaaP. Important is to go into depth and detail with regard to experiences with implemented and described cases, to experiment with communities on specific themes such as e.g. urban living climate or public health services. Moreover, it is important to discuss the do's and don'ts with citizens, civil servants and firms, to identify needs, opportunities and means to bridge possible gaps. So, a complex and extended agenda of research questions is still existing and unanswered. This cannot be stressed enough to avoid that ICT engineers and commercial data collectors and managers start telling us how we should organize horizontal government, or even stronger: force society to use this or that digital tool.
I will advice to publish the paper, after final editing, with the main argument that this paper provides a sufficient trigger for more discussion and research on the subject.
Author Response
|
Reviewer 2 comments |
Revised contents |
|
Finally, I think that your study is not yet a solid basis for formulating recommendations for building GaaP. Important is to go into depth and detail with regard to experiences with implemented and described cases,….. |
- We added policy implication of the results that can deal with consideration of GaaP including privacy, digital divide, and technology.
P. 22 |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
