Investigation of Lean Production Knowledge among Employees in Building Inspection Organizations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
About the Lean Production Knowledge， what is the knowledge system and points in Building Inspection Organizations?
The author just use the WEKA software and SPSS to analysis the questionnaires, but the questionnaires are not scientific and clearly.
Author Response
Author Response to Reviewer 1: First of all, we would like to thank to Reviewer 1 for their valuable comments and suggestions. The main sections that the Reviewer marked as "must be improved" in the first part of his/her evaluation have been enriched (Introduction, Discussion, Conclusion, and References). This has been explained in the submitted file. Also, we got editing help at https://www.mdpi.com/authors/english (MDPI’s Language Editing Services). The English Editing Certificate has also been uploaded to the system.
The suggestions/comments, our responses and the changes made are given below.
Point 1: About the Lean Production Knowledge, what is the knowledge system and points in Building Inspection Organizations?
Response 1: As stated in the study, there is no study in the literature on Lean Production in Building Inspection Organizations (except for one study by the authors). In this respect, a section has been added to the study based on your suggestion, explaining "The Important Points of Lean Production in Building Inspection Organizations". In this section, the main points, such as waste, loss, and the importance of scheduling were emphasized. With these additions, this study has been enriched in terms of Lean Manufacturing in Building Control and its benefits..
Point 2: The author just use the WEKA software and SPSS to analysis the questionnaires, but the questionnaires are not scientific and clearly.
Response 2: As explained in the “Materials and Methods” section of the study, SPSS and WEKA were used in the analysis. While general findings were obtained in the SPSS analysis, with the help of WEKA, a Machine Learning-based software, unique results (Association Rules) that have not been obtained in any previous study were obtained. In this respect, we, as the authors, think that this study will make an important contribution to the literature and will be a pioneer.
The survey questions used in this study were prepared by taking reference from the resources in Refs. 22 and 23. Considering the survey questions of the aforementioned studies, the survey questions were formed by blending the special features of Lean Production in Building Inspection. For the article not to be even longer, the survey questions were not added as an Appendix. The questions used in data analysis were presented clearly.
Thanks for your contribution to the development of this manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper deals with an important topic in the field of architecture, engineering and construction namely Lean Production Knowledge of Employees in Building Inspection Organizations.
LEan Production is one of the ways for the industry to effectively design and implement buildings. The implementation of Lean production brings several pitfalls, and compatibility is one of them. Despite the great need to solve this problem, the article addressed shows shortcomings that must be solved. These shortcomings and comments that I propose to incorporate are written as follows:
1. Abstract – The abstract should contain a brief overview of the methods and tools that were used in the research. Tools have been mentioned, but concrete methods from a statistical point of view are missing in this section. It is also necessary to supplement and clearly state the goal of the research, which is also missing in the abstract. A condition for the improvement of the manuscript is the improvement and revision of the abstract and addition of the mentioned information.
2. Formatting the text according to the magazine's instructions - even the formal page has flaws. It is necessary to check and reformat some parts of the text and tables. likewise, the bibliography is not according to the editors' instructions.
3. Some passages have little explanatory value. These passages are too general or theoretical. I suggest shortening or omitting this (generally known information). On the contrary, some important information is absent. I therefore propose to clarify and describe the entire methodology in more detail. Likewise, the interpretations of the results are based only to a small extent on studies and research that have already been addressed. I suggest comparing your results with the results of previous research.
4. The manuscript lacks a statement about the limits of research and reality more applied in practice. Therefore, I propose to expand this part into the methodology and describe it.
5. The research and research problem is not clearly supported by current literature. Above all, there is a lack of up-to-date magazine sources that would support the need to solve this issue and also point to research that has already been carried out.
Author Response
Author Response to Reviewer 2: First of all, we would like to thank to Reviewer 2 for their valuable comments and suggestions. The main sections that the Reviewer marked as "must be improved" in the first part of his/her evaluation have been enriched (Introduction, Discussion, Conclusion, and References). This has been explained in the submitted file. Also, we got editing help at https://www.mdpi.com/authors/english (MDPI’s Language Editing Services). The English Editing Certificate has also been uploaded to the system.
The suggestions/comments, our responses and the changes made are given below.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper deals with an important topic in the field of architecture, engineering and construction namely Lean Production Knowledge of Employees in Building Inspection Organizations.
Lean Production is one of the ways for the industry to effectively design and implement buildings. The implementation of Lean production brings several pitfalls, and compatibility is one of them. Despite the great need to solve this problem, the article addressed shows shortcomings that must be solved. These shortcomings and comments that I propose to incorporate are written as follows:
Response to Reviewer2: Thanks for your precious comments and suggestions.
Point 1: Abstract – The abstract should contain a brief overview of the methods and tools that were used in the research. Tools have been mentioned, but concrete methods from a statistical point of view are missing in this section. It is also necessary to supplement and clearly state the goal of the research, which is also missing in the abstract. A condition for the improvement of the manuscript is the improvement and revision of the abstract and addition of the mentioned information.
Response 1: The aim of the research was clearly added to the abstract upon your suggestion. In addition, the statistical data obtained from the study has added to the end of the abstract. The abstract has been improved with these revisions.
Point 2: Formatting the text according to the magazine's instructions - even the formal page has flaws. It is necessary to check and reformat some parts of the text and tables. likewise, the bibliography is not according to the editors' instructions.
Response 2: The texts were formatted according to the instructions of the journal. Text and tables has been checked. The references has also been fixed. If there is still a deficiency in this regard, we will contact the editorial board. Thanks for this valuable contribution.
Point 3: Some passages have little explanatory value. These passages are too general or theoretical. I suggest shortening or omitting this (generally known information). On the contrary, some important information is absent. I therefore propose to clarify and describe the entire methodology in more detail. Likewise, the interpretations of the results are based only to a small extent on studies and research that have already been addressed. I suggest comparing your results with the results of previous research.
Point 4: The manuscript lacks a statement about the limits of research and reality more applied in practice. Therefore, I propose to expand this part into the methodology and describe it.
Response 4: The limits of the study and the practice in the sector on the subject have been added to the Discussion section. It is also emphasized in this section that there is no study that is exactly the same as the topic.
Point 5: The research and research problem is not clearly supported by current literature. Above all, there is a lack of up-to-date magazine sources that would support the need to solve this issue and also point to research that has already been carried out.
Response 5: From the literature, 3 studies on lean production in the construction sector and their results have been added to the end of the Introduction and Discussion sections, also Materials and Methods section. Thus, this study has been enriched.
Thanks for your contribution to the development of this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper is well structured with a large workload. This paper was very comprehensive in presenting the determination of lean production knowledge and I enjoyed it.
However, there are too many association rules tables, made this paper boring to read. It is easy to lose interest in reading. I suggest the author to make some illustrations or some flowcharts, which can make the paper more readable.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Author Response to Reviewer 3: First of all, we would like to thank to Reviewer 3 for their valuable comments and suggestions. The main sections that the Reviewer marked as "must be improved" in the first part of his/her evaluation have been enriched (Introduction, Discussion, Conclusion, and References). This has been explained in the submitted file. Also, we got editing help at https://www.mdpi.com/authors/english (MDPI’s Language Editing Services). The English Editing Certificate has also been uploaded to the system.
The suggestions/comments, our responses and the changes made are given below.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This paper is well structured with a large workload. This paper was very comprehensive in presenting the determination of lean production knowledge and I enjoyed it.
Response to Reviewer 3: Thanks for your positive comments.
However, there are too many association rules tables, made this paper boring to read. It is easy to lose interest in reading. I suggest the author to make some illustrations or some flowcharts, which can make the paper more readable.
Response to Reviewer 3: The related tables were preferred because they were used in this way in similar studies in the literature. However, on your suggestion, the mentioned tables have been edited. They have been simplified. Tables 3, 5 and 7 have been converted to explain the qualifications in the rules. Also, they have been made more readable and attractive.
Point 1: The motivations of this study should be given.
Response 1: The motivations of the study were given at the end of the Introduction section.
Point 2: The authors can list the advices or suggestions for realizing the Lean Production.
Response 2: Suggestions for realizing Lean Production are listed at the end of the Conclusion section.
Point 3: The article would be appropriate to explicitly indicate the scientific benefits of the present article explicitly.
Response 3: The scientific benefits of the article have been clearly added at Conclusion section with your suggestion.
Point 4: In the present article would also be appropriate to indicate the Limitations of the Study & Future Research further of research in the area.
Response 4: Limitations of this study and future research in this area are stated at the end of the Discussion section with your suggestion.
Thanks for your contribution to the development of this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This revision meets the required comments, which could be accepted in the current form.
This paper should enhance and clarify the research problems in the introduction section.
Author Response
Author Response to Reviewer 1: First of all, we would like to thank to Reviewer 1 for their valuable comments and suggestions. The suggestions/comments, our responses and the changes made are given below.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
- This revision meets the required comments, which could be accepted in the current form.
Response to Reviewer 1: Thanks for your precious comments and suggestions.
- This paper should enhance and clarify the research problems in the introduction section.
Response to Reviewer 1: Upon your suggestion, a paragraph has been added to enhance and clarify the research problems in the introduction section. This section has been enriched with your suggestions.
Thanks for your all contribution to the development of this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The research that solves the issue Researching the knowledge of lean production among employees in building inspection organizations was mainly adapted according to instructions and guidelines.
The missing information was added in the abstract as a goal, and the work results were briefly summarized.
The theoretical part explaining the Reasons for solving the research and the research problem has also been improved. However, this part still has reserves, and it is possible to improve it. However, more than 3 new sources is needed to clearly confirm the idea and research problem. Therefore, in this part, it is necessary to pay increased attention to the study of other sources that will improve the arguments for the need to solve this issue and will also be a prerequisite for a well-defined research problem.
There has been progressing in the material and method section, where the authors have improved this information, and the research is cleaner from a methodological point of view.
Overall, the authors put effort into improving the manuscript. This is very good for better understanding the exciting research topic. In addition, the methodology and other necessary information were also improved.
However, one area still needs to be improved and resourced. If the authors succeed, with better support for new studies in the field, this valuable contribution can be published.
Author Response
Author Response to Reviewer 2: First of all, we would like to thank to Reviewer 2 for their valuable comments and suggestions. The suggestions/comments, our responses and the changes made are given below.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The research that solves the issue Researching the knowledge of lean production among employees in building inspection organizations was mainly adapted according to instructions and guidelines.
The missing information was added in the abstract as a goal, and the work results were briefly summarized.
The theoretical part explaining the Reasons for solving the research and the research problem has also been improved. However, this part still has reserves, and it is possible to improve it. However, more than 3 new sources is needed to clearly confirm the idea and research problem. Therefore, in this part, it is necessary to pay increased attention to the study of other sources that will improve the arguments for the need to solve this issue and will also be a prerequisite for a well-defined research problem.
There has been progressing in the material and method section, where the authors have improved this information, and the research is cleaner from a methodological point of view.
Overall, the authors put effort into improving the manuscript. This is very good for better understanding the exciting research topic. In addition, the methodology and other necessary information were also improved.
However, one area still needs to be improved and resourced. If the authors succeed, with better support for new studies in the field, this valuable contribution can be published.
Response to Reviewer 2:
Upon your suggestion, 3 more recent studies related to the research problems of this study were added to the theoretical part (material and method). In this way, resources on “PDCA” and “Industry 4.0”, which are current issues related to lean production, have also been added. Thus, this section has been further improved. The same studies have also been added to the Discussion section. If there is any other special references you would like us to add as a bibliography, we are ready to add it as authors (for further development of our work). Thanks to these valuable suggestions, the study has been enriched even more.
Thanks for your all contribution to the development of this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors had made good revisions, this manuscript is qualified to published.
Author Response
Author Response to Reviewer 3: First of all, we would like to thank to Reviewer 3 for their valuable comments and suggestions. The suggestions/comments, our responses and the changes made are given below.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors had made good revisions, this manuscript is qualified to published.
Response to Reviewer 3: Thanks for all your contribution to the development of this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
