Participatory Design of Participatory Systems for Sustainable Collaboration: Exploring Its Potential in Transport and Logistics
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article introduces a new approach, called Participatory Design of Participatory Systems (PDPS) for creating sustainable collaborations in enterprise networks to solve complex problems. The paper highlights the need for actor participation, cross-sector coordination and cross-sector collaboration for effective collaboration in enterprise networks PDPS is a values-based approach that enables people from all disciplines, departments and organizational levels to work together to solve complex problems. This approach involves a mission based on shared values and a continuous process of self-organization to achieve the mission
The paper presents a case study that demonstrates the potential of PDPS in solving recurring transport and logistics problems in store renovation projects of two Dutch trading partners transforming traditional business processes into participatory processes has led to sustainable transport and logistics, more joint business and higher profits. This approach differs from other approaches in that it involves people who play an important role in the business relationship, a focus on shared values, and the ability to create a continuous process of self-organization to achieve a common mission
The article provides a detailed introduction to the challenges of collaboration in enterprise networks and the factors that determine the success of such collaboration. The article then introduces the principles, steps, and activities of PDPS to help the reader understand the method. The case study provides a practical application of the method, making it easier for the reader to visualize how to implement the method. Overall, the paper is well written, well organized and provides invaluable insight into and new approaches to the challenges of enterprise network collaboration. This paper is a useful resource for researchers, practitioners and policy makers interested in developing sustainable partnerships in business networks to solve complex problems.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is interesting in some respects, but it lacks the rigor of research and clarity of reasoning:
If we use the acronym PDPS in the text, the full name should be provided at its first usage (or maybe It’s not acronym). Furthermore, while PDPS is described in detail through principles, foundations, phases, etc., there is no clear definition of what it is. It's not about what it consists of, what features it has, what phases, etc. It's just how the authors understand PDPS (one sentence or a broader ontological foundation - it depends on the authors, but the definition always gives clarity).
The authors do not explain why they selected those two Dutch companies and their business relationship as the case study. The authors state that they explored the potential of PDPS in real-life cases in Iran, Indonesia, India, and the Netherlands, but there is no explanation for this specific choice.
The paper is primarily practical with little scientific contribution. It is unclear who developed PDPS and what the authors' contributions are versus others. There are no sources provided under the figures and tables, and the article reads more like a report of the project activities of these companies rather than a scientific inquiry.
The methodological foundation is weak, and there is no research framework presented. The only methodological aspect is the research question: How can organizations in business networks be supported in building sustainable collaborations to solve complex issues they experience in their business relationship? Of course, the only possible answer is -PDPS. It is explanation (it involves people from different disciplines and focuses on shared values), but it does not clarify what scientific problem the paper addresses and solves.
The entire article seems like project tasks executed by companies, and it is more of a report than a scientific inquiry. Without a true scientific and methodological foundation, the article is better suited to a trade journal than a scientific one. It describes a certain method demonstrated in a particular example in a rather unsystematic way without scientific rigor. As a result, even the limitations are written ambiguously, and it is unclear what they are addressing, except that “participant evaluation limits the extent of generalizing research findings beyond the specifics of the case study”.
The literature could be more current, with less than 10% published in or after 2020, but this is a minor point considering the overall paper. In summary, the paper needs to be revised according to scientific rigor. In its current form, it is not suitable for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors. Congratulations for the work done, however you must improve it. The literature review is poor and references are in average very old fashion. This discussion is very limited, so you must consider to improve it just to guarantee that you have strong contribuitions. Good luck!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The article is interesting and has significant cognitive values. I read this article with interest and I think the authors did a great job.
The article is very precisely processed, the detailed information in the appendix provides even more information and allows the reader to understand in detail the entire context of the article and the solved problem.
First, I would like to recommend authors to improve the quality of the abstract, in order to more and clearly highlight the problem, objectives and contributions of the study.
The methodology could be more elaborate and precise, completed with a graphic representation of the methodical procedure.
The activities carried out and their duration within the framework of the conducted study could be better captured and represented, e.g. Gantt diagram.
Finally, the authors could improve the literature review. The article is supported by some outdated references.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have put effort into improving the article. You can still have some reservations, but the article can be published after minor editorial corrections.
Author Response
First, thanks again for your review. We have made some minor corrections in the text, mostly in Section 4 (Discussion) and a few in the Abstract, Section 1 (Introduction), Section 2 (Materials and Methods), and Section 3 (Results).
