Key Performance Indicators (KPI) to Measure Effectiveness of Lean Construction in Indonesian Project
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe document offers a thorough methodology for establishing and implementing Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that assess the efficiency of lean construction in Indonesian construction projects. To validate the KPIs, the authors used a structured methodology that included case studies, expert focus groups, and a literature review.
Every stage of the project lifecycle—initiation, design, construction, and closure—has relevant key performance indicators that the writers have chosen. This inclusive approach is valuable since it enables a thorough evaluation of the application of lean construction.
The writers could take into account the following to enhance the work even more:
• Give more details on the Delphi technique used to validate the KPIs, including the standards for choosing experts and the procedure for reaching an agreement.
Discuss the case studies' shortcomings and how the KPIs may be improved or modified for use with various project kinds or delivery strategies.
• Consider the probable challenges and obstacles in implementing the lean construction KPIs into practice, and offer solutions.
• Talk about the possible long-term advantages of implementing a lean construction method, such as organisational sustainability and continual improvement, in addition to project performance.
Author Response
as attached
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is a great piece that will significantly contribute to the body of knowledge on lean construction in Indonesia and globally. To enhance the quality of the manuscript, the following comments should be addressed by the authors:
1. The title should be rewritten or re-presented as Key Performance Indicators (KPI) to Measure the Effectiveness of Lean Construction on Indonesian Projects. The authors are also implored to address the syntax, punctuation, grammatical and other language errors observed across the manuscript.
2. The organisation and use of numbers in Section 1.1 should be addressed and presented as bullet points. Also, the manuscript is poorly presented and aligned from numbering issues which consist of digits, roman numerals, and bullet points to disjointed paragraphs. The authors should address this.
3. Figure 2 (Success Criteria of Construction Project) should be revisited to address the uncompleted outcome which I supposed should read "Project Success" instead of Project suc-. The authors need to address this.
4. Section 1.3 which addresses the Key Performance Indicators (KPI) contains four factors for its measurement. The authors should clarify whether one of the KPIs is measured as "impact to customers" or "impact of customers". The authors must correct and address this confusion in Figure 2 and Line 152.
5. The Section on Material and Methods indicated that the methodology employed is a mixed method. However, the methodology is not comprehensively presented to enable to replicability of this method and the study. The description of Figure 3 should be incorporated under this section and well described in addition to the step-by-step presentation done in the manuscript.
6. Table 1 is quite confusing as some of the columns and rows are empty. The authors need to address this and provide the missing information in the Table.
7. The results/information presented in Table 3 should be presented and well highlighted for easy comprehension by the readers.
8. The font used for the content of Table 6 is too small and not legible. The authors need to address and fix this issue. Also, the study lacks a comprehensive and objective discussion of the results obtained from the study. The author needs to revisit this part and address this issue.
9. The conclusion section should be more objective and rewritten to objectively capture the main result and points inferred from the discussion section of the manuscript. Also, recommendations should be provided based on the conclusion drawn from the study.
10. The reference list is poorly presented and not in conformity with the accepted referencing style of the journal. The authors are implored to address this.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe authors are also implored to address the syntax, punctuation, grammatical and other language errors observed across the manuscript.
Author Response
as attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
