Assessing the Effectiveness of Building Information Modeling in Developing Green Buildings from a Lifecycle Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Title:
Please replace "from A Lifecycle Perspective" to "from a Lifecycle Perspective".
Abstract:
"The overall score for the tested project was four". Authors should indicate the scale. This is not a percentage.
"This indicates that the BIM application value was fully achieved in the design stage; however, the value experienced a decline in the construction and operation stages". There is no previous sentence to stress "This". What factor was that led to "indicate"?
When authors hold "functional value obtained the highest score, whereas social value was at the bottom", Is this a property of the building or of the methodology that evaluates it?
No mention to the calibration of the methodology is done. In this case, How are you sure this facilitates decision makers?
I recommend to completely rewrite the abstract following the MDPI suggestions.
Introduction:
Data from global climate change are different from data from China, so no comparatives can be done.
Why "integrating information technology with green buildings is urgent"? Important is not necessary urgent. Urgent is not necessary important (do, delegate, schedule, eliminate).
Does AHP "fail to provide accurate and objective estimations"? Really? Sure?
Authors should highlight the weaknesses of the neural network analytical method, as done with the others as well as prove these gaps can be despised in this research. Even although "CNN enables to mitigate the reliance on subjective judgment by expertise", What is the "price" to pay for it? If limitations are hidden then there is no objectivity.
Methods and data collection:
"The core actors influencing the application value of BIM in the design stage of green buildings are investors, the public, and end-users". Why?
"In the construction stage, the core actors include clients, designers, contactors, and surrounding communities that are possibly influenced by the target." Why?
"In the operation stage, the core actors consist of end-users, investors, property companies, and the public." Why?
The bias to include only those actors considered nuclear by the authors should be reviewed. In my opinion, eliminated.
Where do the factors included in Table 2 come from? How are they justified? Not everything here is, nor everything (that is,) is here.
When authors hold "inviting professionals from industry and academia" What are the requirements to be considered as professionals? Why are professionals included but not experts? Is the judgment of a professional as reliable as that of an expert?
Is a five-point likert scale the best way to feed a "CNN-based assessment model"?
Implicit features of the CNN model should be better introduced and explained.
Authors should differentiate among Sin function, Gaussian function, and Relu function. If they choose the Relu one, then they must justify why. If not, they should not include Sin and Gaussian ones. The choice of other authors is not enough.
When authors hold "Based on aforementioned layers, CNN can be used to assess the effectiveness of life cycle BIM implementation in green buildings.", they must demonstrate it. Aforementioned layers do not imply CNN can be used for the assessment of the effectiveness of the LC BIM implementation in green buildings. Can be used for an assessment? Can be used in BIM environments? Can be used in green buildings contexts?
Authors cannot compare estimation results derived from this study with those obtained from BP neural network, SVM method, and an AHP-based evaluation because the experimental conditions of these alternative scenarios are no checked/included in the paper (data included in the Supplementary file are not enough). For example, AHP is based on the juice of experts. But real experts. And this is not defined. Criteria, objectives and subcriteria must come from contrasted sources...
Two main stages: offline training and online prediction should be better described. Specially the training set that drives to the trained model.
What is the subjective screening made to the 1892 questionnaires to erase 210 units?
The combination of five-point Likert scale with Planguage method is not included in the paper. How do authors transform 1-5 to must-plan-wish-max?
Model training and improving:
When authors hold "indicating that the current CNN has labeled with the requisite features of life cycle BIM implementation in green buildings" are not justifying it. These results must be better explained.
The consistency analysis cannot be considered because the context of the other hypotheses are not escribed.
Empirical analysis:
The 300 questionnaires collected as input data?
Who are the respondents? Criteria to be one of them? End-users?
The scale of scores is not properly defined. This development should be beter documented step by step.
Conclusions:
A bit poor to be the page 17. Are authors sure the text from line 1-417 only imply the 419-431 conclusions? Any kind of limitation?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The document is now clearer and better structured. The comments made in previous reviews have been largely accepted and implemented. Perhaps the conclusions of the document should be more detailed, making the following considerations clearer: "The results of this study may make it easier for decision-makers to detect weaknesses in the implementation of BIM in green buildings. However, the future direction of the research should look for a detailed evolutionary path consistent with the weaknesses identified by the CNN model. It may be useful to better specify how, when, why it is important to continue the researchAuthor Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The aim of the paper was to asses BIM application value in different phases of a green building using a convolutional neural network (CNN) method. An efficient model has been developed in order to estimate accuracy and size of input data, thus minimizing the time and cost for data collection process. The validity of the developed model has been verified both from theoretical and practical perspectives.
Thanks to the application of various assessment methods this study proved that CNN model predicted higher estimation accuracy than BP neural network, SVM method, and AHP-based assessment.
The article is written in an appropriate way, however some improvements are needed.
Lines 274-285 should be removed.
Sometimes the present and the past tense are used interchangeably in the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Great job improving the paper.
Really now, all the steps are documented, justified, explained, better referenced, etc.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Title:
Although this is interesting, I recommend to shorten it.
Abstract:
Please, describe CNN first time you cite it.
Why is the leapfrogging of green techniques necessary? Please, put into context it.
Why a CNN-based method? This should be previously driven.
What is the meaning of "the overall score for the target project was four"?
Constraints of time and size? Complexity, PPPs, ...Little or much time? Big or small? Delimit it.
Functional and social values are not put into context.
Authors can follow the instructions of MDPI about the abstract:
Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study
(2) Methods: Describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied
(3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings
(4) Conclusions: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations
In summary, the abstract should be an objective representation of the article, it must not contain results which are not presented and substantiated in the main text and should not exaggerate the main conclusions.
Keywords:
Application value is not present in the Title: Although it is into the abstract, this is not properly justified. With the new abstract, consider the importance of these selected words.
Introduction:
Green design is not justified only with primary energy consumption by buildings. For that, the concept of NZEB buildings exits. However, the ecological impact is very different. Material extraction, manufacturing and construction make the difference. Into the operation and maintenance stages they are similar. Add value to your choice of green design.
NZEB are not traditional buildings.
Not how or what. Why
GB and BIM must be better linked (connecting with your purpose).
Are you sure the comparative analysis of different assessment methods must be done in the introduction?
If you state at the beginning "the superiority of neural network in estimations", what is your novelty? what are your findings? Remember you are introducing the scope (as MDPI recommends the introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important and should define the purpose of the work and its significance (being reviewed the current state of the research field carefully and key publications being cited, highlighting controversial and diverging hypotheses when necessary and briefly mentioning the main aim of the work and highlighting the principal conclusions of that).
Methods and data collection:
Related to Figure 1: Are not linked designers with the design stage of the life cycle? Pubilc? Where are the BIM managers during the whole process?
Inputs from Figure 1 are not properly developed into the text.
Value breakdown system?
Table 2 must be redone. What is the meaning of EV, FV, ...? The previous relevant literature must be cited to make it.
Invitation of professionals from industry and academia must be properly done. What is the methodology to be followed? What are the requirements to be considered as an industry professional or an academic member? Are they experts? What is their field of expertise?
Perhaps this section should be divided into two sections:
132-156 and 157-307
However you must stress what are the gaps found, how you are going to solve them and why to do it is relevant.
Development of supplementary file is ok but this paper cannot be a driven-method paper. Justify the steps have been done and, at the end of the paper, discuss with the findings of previous researches.
Empirical analysis:
The exemplary nature and uniqueness of the case study must be better explained and justified.
Figure 5 must be put into the context of the research.
Field survey of 300 respondents? Where are the questions to be answered?
Lines 339-365 must be better driven.
Figure 6 must be better explained.
7B?
Results must be better interpreted and connected with the introduction and literature review done in order to solve the gap.
Discussion is missing. Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses in the broadest context possible (no references in this section is impossible).
Conclusions:
Best findings are in the supplementary file.
Why is this research done? Novelty? Applicability to other construction projects or countries? At the end almost nothing of greenness nor BIM are included. Only comparative results of different assessing methods.
Reviewer 2 Report
1) Title just doesn't make sense.
Life cycle effectiveness seems a term defined by authors...
2) Litterature review is inexistant for the link between green building and BIM.
Authors wrote: "However, previous research focused on the practical and empirical application of BIM in green buildings, yet they lacked an in-depth understanding of life cycle effectiveness of BIM implementation, that is, a holistic framework conceptualizing the life cycle value of BIM in green buildings. An accurate and time-efficient assessment of the application value of BIM is beneficial for identifying practical effectiveness and realistic problems in the decision-making process involved in projects. Only through such assessment can the life cycle value of BIM in green buildings be maximized."
No references while there was just a special issue about BIM and LCA published in Sustainability!
3) Finally results on Life Cycle effectiveness are totally unclear. So unclear that all figures showing results about the life cycle effectiveness do not have Y axis title, nor units!
4) the choice of Economic/social environmental functional values for design construction operation coud be interesting but at theend it is just more or less all the values invoving all stakeholders in all the phases... so don't need to have this description (which seems to be the core of the argument).$
For instance why safety value is only for construction phase? not for design and operation.
Same for managerial value only for operation phase while you have construction management experts on the field. so management during construction is a key point for successful construction.
To conclude, ideas are not justified.
Some might be good, but some also very problematic and confuse.
Reviewer 3 Report
This study develop a CNN-based method for assessing the application value of BIM in green buildings. The research is highly topical. Its contents is sufficiently clear and correctly well organized. The bibliography appears exhaustive and reasoned (paper line error 478).
I suggest to give more space to the conclusions (they are very short) and highlight what could be the possible future developments of the research.
I propose to better explain how the results of this study could help decision makers to identify weaknesses in the implementation of BIM in green buildings and to present more precisely the future direction it should take for a detailed evolutionary path consistent with the weaknesses identified by the proposed model (CNN).
It is recommended, in addition to the advantages, to try the true limits of the proposed model (CNN) compared to other solutions. I propose to support with more information and data the conclusions using the achieved results.
