Toward Reducing Construction Project Delivery Time under Limited Resources

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Your paper clearly involved a considerable amount of scholarly work. Its readability has been improved in the latest submission. For the future I would recommend more time to be spent on the communication quality of the paper to an international audience.

Author Response

Figures and references have been improved.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting study and a timely topic for a research work, focusing on delivery time under limited resources of construction projects and its reduction. Although the authors have demonstrated great efforts with such an important study, the literature review should be further extended as well as some of the figures should be improved because of their resolution and legibility. The authors should also extend the current abstract word count, if possible. Otherwise, the paper would be very interesting to the readers working in the related field, and the conclusions derived from the study are as well offering some useful findings. I do not have any further comments or suggestions for further improvement of this paper.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
Response 1: Research language and style are checked and revised by authors and tools such as Grammarly, wordracke etc. The research was done according to the MDPI LaTeX templates and adhered to all the rules.
Point 2: Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?
Response 2: Research methodology presented on page 4
Point 3: The literature review should be further extended as well as some of the figures should be improved because of their resolution and legibility.
Response 3: The resolution of the figures improved and some figures added page 4. The current abstract word count extended and became 167 word only. The literature review extended and the number of references exceeded.
Point 4: Is the article adequately referenced?
Response 4: yes, and the cross-reference done for all article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Suggestions for improvement:

To explain little bit in detail how data were gathered from experts in construction projects for AHP. Did the experts do pairwise comparisons or they just had given relevant information and then authors performed the comparison? (page 4)

The text in Figure 10 should be more clear: “… Duration after Resolving..” - of what? “…. Duration for Each …” ? (page 11)

To define optimisation model mathematically, at least in a generic way. Now it is explained only verbally. (page 12, lines 397-402)

 

Author Response

Point 1: To explain a little bit in detail how data were gathered from experts in construction projects for AHP. Did the experts do pairwise comparisons or they just had given relevant information and then the authors performed the comparison? (Page 4)
Response 1: the experts had performed the pairwise comparisons and then the authors analyzed the results (please see attached Appendix and line 183:184, page 5)
Point 2: The text in Figure 10 should be more clear: “… Duration after Resolving..” - of what? “…. Duration for Each …” ? (page 11)
Response 2: The text in Figure 10 is modified as follows: (Calculate the Original Project Duration after Resolving Resources) and (Calculate the Max Allowable Overlapping Duration for Each Activity). (Page 14)
Point 3: To define the optimization model mathematically, at least in a generic way. Now it is explained only verbally. (page 12, lines 397-402)
Response 3: Model formulation explained on page 11 from line 260
Point 4: English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
Response 4: Research language and style are checked and revised by authors and tools such as Grammarly, wordracke etc. The research was done according to the MDPI LaTeX templates and adhered to all the rules.
Point 5: Are the research design, questions, hypotheses, and methods clearly stated?
Response 5: Research methodology presented on page 4
Point 6: Is the article adequately referenced?
Response 6: yes, and the cross-reference was done for all article

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf