Addressing of Value Management Implementation Barriers within the Indian Construction Industry: A PLS-SEM Approach
, Shah Siddharth 2, Nicholas Chileshe 3,4, Badr Alsolami 5 and Mohammed Magdy Hamed 6,7Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The author needs to explain more about how the hypothesis statement can be derived from the previous discussion.
2. The study aims to increase the successful completion of construction projects implementing VM. However, the author does not sufficiently discuss the literature review which explains that VM implementation will improve project performance.
3. Why do the authors use EFA when they have defined the 6 hypotheses previously. EFA is intended to determine the factors/constructs underlying a set of measurable variables; and then the hypothesis is derived afterwards.
4. From the results of the SEM analysis, the authors did not explain what the conclusions of the research hypothesis were.
5. We recommend that the authors continue the PLS-SEM analysis, namely using Bootstrapping to test the Structural Model / Inner Model.
6. I can't find Figure 12 in the article, which is very important to understand the discussion. Therefore I limit myself to comment more on the discussion section because the discussion is based on Figure 12.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Title of the paper needs to be revised. For barriers, the most important thing is to address, not to prioritize.
2. What on earth is the topic of the paper? Value management or virtual machines? Please check, particularly the title of the paper.
3. The abstract of the paper is too lengthy. Too much redundant information was included.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors presented a study on Prioritization of value management implementation barriers within the Indian construction industry.
The authors presented important issues of implementation barriers in construction projects to evaluate the Value Management (VM) in India.
Literature sources are cited extensively.
Discussion include important information from the researches carried out.
The authors should address some issues that are in this article:
- Figure 3 and Table 4 is a bit unclear- the values obtained from the figure are not clearly explained in the text, lines: 392-400, (-while Table 5 and Figure 4 are related –lines: 409-411)
- In the article are texts: Error! Reference source not found-lines:152,189, 208, 368, 384
- Hypotheses H1-H6 are defined in section 2.3. Furthermore the term hypothesis no longer appears in the article. It is not clear which hypotheses you accept or reject (lines:192-203)
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Value management is a common and basic tool that has been widely used by the global construction community. The reviewer wonder why the authors choose to investigate a basic tool that has been so widely used. Furthermore, nothing valued information was provided by the study. It was written in the paper that value managment barriers could be grouped into six new constructs, namely client, knowledge, information, culture, resources, team members, and workshop. Such kind of results is incorrect and meaningless. First, these six contructs are not new at all. Second, such kind of six constructs is applicable to any construction managment problem. Thus, this paper is of no use, neither to the industry, nor to the academia.
