Challenges and Opportunities for Human Factors/Ergonomics as a Strategic Partner for Business Managers: In-Depth Research of Experts’ Visions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Strengths

The article presents a unique research topic and scope related to the research on the challenges and opportunities for human factors/ergonomics as a strategic partner for business managers.

The manuscript fills the research gap of the described a very interesting problem of challenges and opportunities for human factors/ergonomics as a strategic partner for business managers.

The solutions to the research problem contained in the text complement the scientific literature in the scope of the present issues.

The solutions presented by the authors are interesting and broaden the scope of research related to the challenges and opportunities for human factors/ergonomics as a strategic partner for business managers.

The conclusions presented by the authors, based on the analysis of the literature are consistent with the evidence and arguments.

Weaknesses

There is no precisely defined purpose of the manuscript.

The significance of the research problem has not been presented in detail.

The research methodology has not been described in detail.

There are no references to the results of practical examples.

Authors should:

The purpose of the article should be specified.

Define the essence and importance of the described problem.

The methodology should be completed in detail with the conducted empirical research.

The article should contain practical examples of solutions in the field of research on challenges and opportunities for human factors/ergonomics as a strategic partner for business managers.

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer, 

We would like to thank you for your time and efforts to review our paper. We appreciate very much very detailed and valuable feedback which we have received from your side. 

By mentioning the strengths of the research you very much encouraged us to continuously work on this research problem and research gap.

We have carefully analysed the weak points of the research which you have mentioned to us and we do agree with them. We have addressed all of the comments and suggestions. We are sure that by addressing your comments we have increased the value of the paper. We thank you for that. 

Here is a short summary of the improvements made:

• The purpose of the article should be specified; Define the essence and importance of the described problem - Elaboration of the purpose of the article along with the importance of the described problem have been improved by further explanations in the Introduction part. 
• The methodology should be completed in detail with the conducted empirical research - The methodology is improved by adding Appendix I in which are presented in details questions used as a bases for the semi-structured interview process.
• The article should contain practical examples of solutions in the field of research on challenges and opportunities for human factors/ergonomics as a strategic partner for business managers - Practical examples have been demonstrated in the last section of the Results. Examples from different business units of Korean Samsung have demonstrated practical solutions in the field of challenges and opportunities for HFE as a strategic partner to business managers. 

We thank you for your time to review the upgraded article. In case of any further questions we will be glad to discuss.

With best regards,

The Authors 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer, 

We would like to thank you for your time and efforts to review our paper. We appreciate very much very detailed and valuable feedback which we have received from your side. 

By mentioning the strengths of the research you very much encouraged us to continuously work on this research problem and research gap.

We have carefully analysed the weak points of the research which you have mentioned to us and we do agree with them. We have addressed all of the comments and suggestions. We are sure that by addressing your comments we have increased the value of the paper. We thank you for that. 

Here is a short summary of the improvements made based on your suggestions:

1. Display of data - We have improved the quality and redundancy of both Table 1 and Table 2 along with that we have added additional information about the process of thematic analysis with the main purpose to clearly present to the readers how the results were extracted from the responses obtained. Table 1 has become shorter (we have removed part of the examples as multiple examples have not increased the smoothness of data reading and have rather caused confusion for the reader). In creation of Table 1 we have followed example from original research of Braun and Clarke (2006) about thematic analysis. The way how data are presented in 
2. Improvement of conclusion part - conclusion has been improved by adding clear connection between the results and how they respond to the research question. In that way the conclusion became broader, summarizing and capturing the main points of the research. In addition based on standards of the journal discussion and conclusion parts have been merged while limitations are presented in a separate section.
3. Paragraphs with line and paragraph spacing issues have been rewritten 

In addition we have made the following improvements as well:

• Elaboration of the purpose of the article along with the importance of the described problem have been improved by further explanations in the Introduction part. 
• The methodology is improved by adding Appendix I in which are presented in details questions used as a bases for the semi-structured interview process
• Practical examples have been demonstrated in the last section of the Results. Examples from different business units of Korean Samsung have demonstrated practical solutions in the field of challenges and opportunities for HFE as a strategic partner to business managers. 

We thank you for your time to review the upgraded article. In case of any further questions we will be glad to discuss.

Kind regards,

The Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer, 

We would like to thank you for your time and efforts to review our paper. We appreciate very much very detailed and valuable feedback which we have received from your side. 

By mentioning the strengths of the research you very much encouraged us to continuously work on this research problem and research gap.

We have carefully analysed the weak points of the research which you have mentioned to us and we do agree with them. We have addressed all of the comments and suggestions. We are sure that by addressing your comments we have increased the value of the paper. We thank you for that. 

Here is a short summary of the improvements made based on your suggestions:

1. Display of data (tables) and reproducibility of research method  - We have improved the quality and redundancy of both Table 1 and Table 2. Titles, sources as well as explanation why they are used are given. Along with that we have added additional information about the process of thematic analysis with the main purpose to clearly present to the readers how the results were extracted from the responses obtained. This improves the reproducibility of the research method. Table 1 has become shorter (we have removed part of the examples as multiple examples have not increased the smoothness of data reading and understanding and have rather caused confusion). In creation of Table 1 we have followed example from original research of Braun and Clarke (2006) about thematic analysis. 
2. Improvement of conclusion part - conclusion has been improved by adding clear connection between the results and how they respond to the research question. In that way the conclusion became broader, summarizing and capturing the main points of the research and offering support for result generation. In addition, based on standards of the journal, discussion and conclusion parts have been merged while limitations are presented in a separate section.
3. The methodology is improved by adding Appendix I in which are presented in details questions used as a bases for the semi-structured interview process which as well positively influence on understanding how the responses are analysed and the conclusion are drawn.
4. Paragraphs with line and paragraph spacing issues have been rewritten 

In addition we have made the following improvements as well:

• Elaboration of the purpose of the article along with the importance of the described problem have been improved by further explanations in the Introduction part. 
• Practical examples have been demonstrated in the last section of the Results. Examples from different business units of Korean Samsung have demonstrated practical solutions in the field of challenges and opportunities for HFE as a strategic partner to business managers. 

We thank you for your time to review the upgraded article. In case of any further questions we will be glad to discuss.

Kind regards,

The Authors 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Most of the additions and corrections to the article have been made.

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, authors haveâ made the most of improvements.