Identification of Factors Affecting the Performance of Rural Road Projects in Colombia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper discusses the impact of various factors on delays and cost overruns on rural road projects in Colombia. The topic of this research is important and well-known in practice but can be a useful insight to researchers and industry practitioners in developing countries. This problem was presented in papers also included in the literature review. The authors proposed a typical methodology (statistical approach – univariate and Bivariate analysis, as well as Random Forest) to identify factors causing the problem stated. The Authors using huge empirical data of rural road construction projects (535, from 2015 to 2018), available through the Colombian Government's open data platform. Results are partially expected but valuable for practitioners.

The abstract seems a good synthesis of the paper. The tables are clear and need minor explanations. The paper is well written and structured and results are valuable but expected taking into account the available literature review.

Comments:

• The part of the literature review is well written, but I suggest to better present gaps in literature review and expected findings.
• To better understand variables in table 1 should be included (apart description of variables), unit and value of variables,
• Quality od figures should be better, fonts are too small (for example fig. 2),
• Please check the text according to typos and formatting (for example line: 139, 216-217, 327-328, 330)
• The sentence in lines 326-329, delete …in this case, four….
• Please add in table 4 unit for Project Intensity
• Considering correlated variables (figure 5) please add the value of correlation coefficient to excluding variables from the analysis

Author Response

1.0 The abstract seems a good synthesis of the paper. The tables are clear and need minor explanations. The paper is well written and structured and results are valuable but expected taking into account the available literature review.

The authors wish to thank Reviewer #1 for his/her time and effort in reviewing our manuscript, as well as for his/her suggestions and observations. We have performed a more detailed copyediting. The following is a point-by-point response with a description of what has been changed in the manuscript and our reasoning for the modifications and improvements. We believe that these changes have improved the paper. Changes are highlighted in the attached document: "Sustainability-Corrections.docx").

1.1 The part of the literature review is well written, but I suggest to better present gaps in literature review and expected findings.

The authors are grateful for Reviewer #1's observations regarding this matter. Following his/her recommendations, the research gap has been rewritten, lines 71-79 in the attached document.

1.2 To better understand variables in table 1 should be included (apart description of variables), unit and value of variables

We sincerely appreciate the comments from the Reviewer, and we are very grateful to him/her for his/her suggestion. We have taken into account this suggestion, and we have modified Table 1, and also the description has been rewritten (See line 117 in the attached document).

1.3 Quality of figures should be better, fonts are too small (for example fig. 2),

According to the instructions for authors, we changed the font type in Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

1.4 Please check the text according to typos and formatting (for example line: 139, 216-217, 327-328, 330)

According to the suggestion of the Reviewer, we changed the text according to typos and formatting.  Besides, the format for the references was adjusted according to the instructions for authors. The changes are in lines 134-138, 194-196, 211-212, 322-325, 346-348.

1.5 The sentence in lines 326-329, delete …in this case, four….

According to the comment made by Reviewer #1, the text was removed.

1.6 Please add in table 4 unit for Project Intensity

According to the comment made by Reviewer #1, the unit for Project Intensity was included in Table 4.

1.7 Considering correlated variables (figure 5) please add the value of correlation coefficient to excluding variables from the analysis

We appreciate the Reviewer's comment. Following his/her advice, this information was rewritten to clarify the information. (See lines 249-252 in the attached document). 

In addition, we clarify in the identification of significant variables, according to the Spearmans' Rho, which variables are not significant, for time deviation see line 261 in the attached document. And for the cost deviation see line 291 in the attached document. 

The authors appreciate the remarks made by Reviewer #1 and believe his/her suggestions and observations have greatly improved the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing the paper entitled: Identification of Factors Affecting the Performance of Rural Road Projects in Colombia.

This is a good paper, well structured and carefully prepared.

However,please find bellow some observations:

1.The time, costs and quality of a project have been increasingly recognized as determinants of project success and they have been frequently used as indicators for monitoring the success of the project.

In fact, time, costs and quality are the so-called triangle of the project, representing constraints, and the imbalance of factors can lead to the inability to achieve the result indicators.The authors' approach to analyze only 2 of these factors, ie time and cost, seems a bit strange, because I did not find any reference to the compromise of the variation of these factors and the quality of rural road works. This seems important to me because the results of the study shows an increase of over 20% in both cost deviation and time deviation.Is relevant for planners to take into consederation only these deviations?

2.For a better systematization of the conclusions of the article, I recommend that they be grouped in the synthesis of the results, the authors' contributions, future research.

3.In order to highlight the limitations of the study, I recommend the introduction of a section:Limitations of Study, before  Conclusions in which, I think it would be interesting for the authors, to add to the mentioned limitations  a short sentence related to the fact that in the future, beside the dependent variables,project managers must  also consider sub-factors of costs and time related to risk categories (especially now due to the COVID -19 crisis all construction projects are deeply affected).

Author Response

2.0 This is a good paper, well-structured and carefully prepared.

The authors wish to thank Reviewer #2 for his/her time and effort in reviewing our manuscript, as well as for his/her suggestions and observations. We have performed a more detailed copyediting. The following is a point-by-point response with a description of what has been changed in the manuscript and our reasoning for the modifications and improvements. We believe that these changes have improved the paper. Changes are highlighted in the attached manuscript: “Sustainability-Corrections.docx”).

2.1 The time, costs and quality of a project have been increasingly recognized as determinants of project success and they have been frequently used as indicators for monitoring the success of the project.  In fact, time, costs and quality are the so-called triangle of the project, representing constraints, and the imbalance of factors can lead to the inability to achieve the result indicators. The authors' approach to analyze only 2 of these factors, ie time and cost, seems a bit strange, because I did not find any reference to the compromise of the variation of these factors and the quality of rural road works. This seems important to me because the results of the study shows an increase of over 20% in both cost deviation and time deviation. Is relevant for planners to take into consideration only these deviations?

We understand the Reviewer's concern. We defined a successful project as one that has achieved its technical performance, maintaining its initial schedule and budget (Frimpong, Oluwoye, & Crawford, 2003). With the available variables in the database, we could analyze two of these constraints: time and cost deviations. However, all the projects included are closed projects. It means that the scope has been achieved, guaranteeing the quality previously established. The database does not contain additional information reporting quality like lab tests, pictures, or other documents related to quality. This fact has been included in the section "Limitations of the Research". (See line 434-447 in the attached document). Also, this information was included in the introduction section, see line 78 in the attached document. 

However, it would be worthwhile to corroborate the project's quality and the scope, which implies other research methods such as site visits, evaluation of project documents, and even interviews with stakeholders to verify that the project was indeed a response to the need identified in the initial stage. It is proposed as future research, line 482-485 in the attached document. 

2.2 For a better systematization of the conclusions of the article, I recommend that they be grouped in the synthesis of the results, the authors' contributions, future research.

We sincerely appreciate this comment from the Reviewer. Following his/her advice, the conclusions section was organized in the synthesis of the results, the authors' contribution, and future research (See line 448-485 in the attached document).

2.3 In order to highlight the limitations of the study, I recommend the introduction of a section: Limitations of Study, before  Conclusions in which, I think it would be interesting for the authors, to add to the mentioned limitations  a short sentence related to the fact that in the future, beside the dependent variables, project managers must  also consider sub-factors of costs and time related to risk categories (especially now due to the COVID -19 crisis all construction projects are deeply affected).

We sincerely appreciate this comment from the Reviewer. Following his/her advice, a new section "Limitations of the research" has been included in line 444-447 in the attached document.    

The authors appreciate the remarks made by Reviewer #2 and believe his/her suggestions and observations have greatly improved the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf