Literature Review on Collaborative Project Delivery for Sustainable Construction: Bibliometric Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper reveals the advantages and disadvantages of Collaborative Project Delivery (CPD) methods and the most suitable CPD for sustainable construction. It does this by conducting a bibliometric analysis and traditional literature review regarding CPD focusing on Design Build (DB), Construction Management at Risk (CMAR), and Integrated Project Delivery (PD) Method. The analysis is based on the Scopus database’s 927 journal papers published from the year 2000 to the 3^rd quarter of 2023. Google Scholar is also employed for an in-depth analysis. The advantages/disadvantages of CPD are identified in order to suggest the most suitable CPD technique for sustainable construction.

This paper reviews the CPD for sustainable construction, which is of practical significance. The information provided is valuable to the domain field. However, there are several areas that need to be improved. The following comments are listed below.

1.   It would be beneficial to include a statement of reasons or links as to why two databases were used in this study instead of just one.

2.   There are inconsistencies in writing citations. Please make sure the style used matches the journal template. Additionally, there are several citation sentences such as ".... as detailed by [21]." How to cite with this style requires consistency. Additionally, the formatting of references needs standardization to enhance academic rigor.

3.   In Abstract: Readers will have difficulty understanding the specific terminology “… bibliometric instruments in R …”

4.   In the introduction section (page 2), it is written that "research objectives" are followed by several interrogative sentences. By looking at the context and sentences, it is actually "research questions" not "research objectives". Next, one paragraph which only consists of one interrogative sentence, is merged into the previous paragraph.

5.   The clarity of several charts is severely lacking and requires significant improvement, including Figs. 12-14. The other charts exhibit the following deficiencies that necessitate correction.

Fig.: Please revise it to “Yearly scientific production of IPD, DB, and CMAR”

Figs. 5 & 6: What do different colors mean?

Fig. 7: Please present in a decreasing rather than an increasing manner.

Fig. 8: Please enlarge the chart by at least 150%.

Fig. 11: Chart Title?

6.   In subsection 2.5, "He" does not refer to the person described. The existence of "He" must be clarified.

7.   The conclusions are inadequate and require significant reinforcement.

Typos:

1.   In Figure 1, “the Scopus Database (200-2023)”; in the next box (step), the three types of CPD are separated by ";" or a comma.

2.   In subsection 4.1.1, "The 764 papers ............ span (2020-2023)”

3.   Title in 5.1.4. what is written is "Disadvantages of IPD [100]". Is the "[100]" referred to as a citation number?

 

4.   The last sentence, page 5, 2^nd paragraph: Despite early recognition of sustainability’s importance in construction, as Korkmaz et al. (2010 integrating sustainability into construction project management has experienced delays [43].

Author Response

 

Thank you very much for all your comments I appreciate them very much, please, kindly see below all my response to your comments I am grateful.

 

1. It would be beneficial to include a statement of reasons or links as to why two databases were used in this study instead of just one.

Thank you very much for this comment; Please see page 7 inline to your  comments; Scopus facilitataed the use of Bibliometric analysis using R which is a powerful statistical computing language which is used to perform complex data analysis and visualizations on bibliographic data which helped in Measuring  productivity, Analyzing Impact, Identifying Key Authors and Institutions,Mapping Networks,Detecting Research Trends, Comparing Research Output, and Understanding Publication Patterns. While google scholar facilitated the traditional literature review which enhanced the review on advantages and disadvantages of IPD DB and CMAR.

 

2. There are inconsistencies in writing citations. Please make sure the style used matches the journal template. Additionally, there are several citation sentences such as ".... as detailed by [21]." How to cite with this style requires consistency.Additionally, the formatting of references needs standardization to enhance academic rigor.

Thank you very much for this comment, please kindly see page as seen in parargraph 4 of page 3

 

3. In Abstract: Readers will have difficulty understanding the specific terminology “… bibliometric instruments in R …”

 

Thank you very much for this comment; please see correction in Abstract, This research involves the application of bibliometric instruments in R which is a powerful statistical computing language that can be used to perform complex data analysis and visualizations on bibliographic data to scrutinize academic journals retrieved from the Scopus database

 

4. In the introduction section (page 2), it is written that "research objectives" are followed by several interrogative sentences. By looking at the context and sentences, it is actually "research questions" not "research objectives". Next, one paragraph which only consists of one interrogative sentence, is merged into the previous paragraph.

Thank you very much for this comment; please see correction in page 2 paragraph 6 This will be performed through the following research questions. What is the current research landscape and distribution of CPD (IPD, DB, CMAR) publications from 2000 -2023? What are CPD advantages and disadvantages? What is the most suitable CPD technique for sustainable construction and the future of collaborative project delivery and sustainable construction.

Please, kindly see correction in paragraph 7 of page 2.

 

 

5. The clarity of several charts is severely lacking and requires significant improvement, including Figs. 12-14. The other charts exhibit the following deficiencies that necessitate correction.

 

Fig.: Please revise it to “Yearly scientific production of IPD, DB, and CMAR”

Figs. 5 & 6: What do different colors mean? The colors helps with contrast to separate the different countries and region.

Fig. 7: Please present in a decreasing rather than an increasing manner. Please see page 13 this figure has been represented in a decreasing manner rather than an increasing manner.

 

Fig. 8: Please enlarge the chart by at least 150%. Thank you very much for this comment; please see correction in Please see page 14.

Fig. 11: Chart Title? Please see page 16, Thank you very much I have removed the graph title as suggested.

 

6. In subsection 2.5, "He" does not refer to the person described. The existence of "He" must be clarified. Thank you very much for this comment; please see correction in please see page 4 Sustainability is described as a three-legged stool, symbolizing the interconnectedness of the ecosystem, society, and economy
7. The conclusions are inadequate and require significant reinforcement. Thank you very much for this comment please see page 29 and 30 inline with your comments I have reinforced the conclusion by adding limitations and future recommendations to einforce the conclusion.

 

Typos:

1. In Figure 1, “the Scopus Database (200-2023)”; in the next box (step), the three types of CPD are separated by ";" or a comma. Thank you very much for this comment, Please see page 7 for correction.
2. In subsection 4.1.1, "The 764 papers ............ span (2020-2023)” Thank you very much for this comment kindly see page 9 for correction.
3. Title in 5.1.4. what is written is "Disadvantages of IPD [100]". Is the "[100]" referred to as a citation number? Thank you very much for this comment kindly see page 25 for correction.

 

4. The last sentence, page 5, 2^ndparagraph: Despite early recognition of sustainability’s importance in construction, as Korkmaz et al. (2010 integrating sustainability into construction project management has experienced delays [43]. Thank you very much for this comment kindly see page 5 for correction.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents a comprehensive analysis of the collaborative project delivery (CPD) approach, specifically focusing on design-build (DB), risk-based construction management (CMAR), and integrated project delivery (PD). Through an extensive bibliometric analysis and literature review using R-based bibliometric tools combined with data from Scopus database and Google Scholar, this study establishes a robust research framework encompassing 927 journal articles published between 2000 and 2023. The methodological rigor employed in this research provides substantial empirical evidence to uncover the strengths and weaknesses of the CPD approach. Furthermore, the authors successfully identify and analyze influential publications that shape discussions around CPD, thereby contributing significantly to understanding scholarly influence and knowledge development within this field. Additionally, this article offers valuable insights into the current state of the industry by examining the application of CPD technology in sustainable construction projects. These analyses not only highlight the potential benefits associated with adopting CPD methods but also shed light on practical challenges faced during implementation, thus providing directions for future research. However, there is room for improvement in some aspects. Detailed comments are as followings. 

1. Despite the extensive literature covered, the article does not provide a comprehensive discussion on how collaborative delivery models in other areas compare to CPD approaches. Additionally, there is a lack of specific case studies or empirical research on the implementation of early contractor engagement (ECI) to enhance project outcomes.

2. The authors should consider including more real-life studies on CPD compared to other project delivery methods in their future research. It would be especially helpful to include successful applications of ECI, as this would provide a more comprehensive assessment of the practical benefits and limitations of the CPD approach. Additionally, given the multi-dimensional and complex nature of sustainable construction, it is important to further explore how applicable and adaptable CPD is in different construction environments.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for all your comments I appreciate them very much, please, kindly see below all my response to your comments I am grateful

 

 

Despite the extensive literature covered, the article does not provide a comprehensive discussion on how collaborative delivery models in other areas compare to CPD approaches. 

The Behavioral Elements of Collaborative Delivery Models identifies key behaviors essential for the success of collaborative projects. It emphasizes elements like cooperation, defined as the exchange of information for the project's benefit, and collaboration, which entails working together to achieve the best outcomes. Other critical elements include mutual trust, open communication, commitment to common goals, equality, mutual respect, and team integration. These elements are regarded as fundamental to collaborative project models and are often highlighted in relevant literature. [145]

In contrast, the Pyramid Model for Collaborative Project Delivery builds on the basic behavioral elements by exploring their interrelationships and the enablers that facilitate these behaviors. This model is structured into a pyramid that outlines the behavioral elements and their connections, identifying both common enablers that support all elements and specific enablers that support particular behaviors. Through a detailed thematic analysis, this model provides a dynamic representation of how different behaviors interact and are supported within the project delivery framework. [145]

While both models are designed to enhance the implementation of effective collaborative practices in project delivery, they differ in their approach and complexity. The Behavioral Elements Model provides a straightforward listing and definition of key collaborative behaviors. In contrast, the Pyramid Model delves deeper, analyzing the interdependencies among behaviors and the factors that enable them, offering a more comprehensive and interconnected framework. Despite their differences, both models share a focus on essential collaborative behaviors like cooperation and communication, employing analytical methods to foster better understanding and practice in collaborative project environments[145]

 

Additionally, there is a lack of specific case studies or empirical research on the implementation of early contractor engagement (ECI) to enhance project outcomes.

Thank you very much for this comment, please kindly see page 5

 

2.7 The Benefits of ECI comparing  case studies

Case 1 demonstrates the drawbacks of not incorporating Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) in a medium-scale residential project on the East Coast of the United States. Despite adopting Building Information Modeling (BIM) for design development and modularization, the absence of ECI meant that the design intents captured geometric and material information but provided little detail about constructability, the construction process, costs, and the supply chain. This lack of contractor input resulted in significant uncertainties, leading to the project's abandonment in favor of a conventional construction approach without prefabrication or Design for Automated Building (DFAB). Conversely, Case 2 highlights the successful implementation of both BIM and ECI in a small-scale healthcare project in northern England. The project effectively managed system complexity in manufacturing through post-rationalization and mass customization, reduced assembly complexity through modularization, and minimized interface complexities in manufacture and assembly through prefabrication. This collaborative approach, facilitated by ECI, significantly enhanced project outcomes in sustainable construction, demonstrating the value of integrating contractors early in the design process.[143]

 

Conversely, Case 2 highlights the successful implementation of both BIM and ECI in a small-scale healthcare project in northern England. The project effectively managed system complexity in manufacturing through post-rationalization and mass customization, reduced assembly complexity through modularization, and minimized interface complexities in manufacture and assembly through prefabrication. This collaborative approach, facilitated by ECI, significantly enhanced project outcomes in sustainable construction, demonstrating the value of integrating contractors early in the design process. Case 1 demonstrates the drawbacks of not incorporating Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) in a medium-scale residential project on the East Coast of the United States. Despite adopting Building Information Modeling (BIM) for design development and modularization, the absence of ECI meant that the design intents captured geometric and material information but provided little detail about constructability, the construction process, costs, and the supply chain. This lack of contractor input resulted in significant uncertainties, leading to the project's abandonment in favor of a conventional construction approach without prefabrication or Design for Automated Building (DFAB). [143]

The authors should consider including more real-life studies on CPD compared to other project delivery methods in their future research. It would be especially helpful to include successful applications of ECI, as this would provide a more comprehensive assessment of the practical benefits and limitations of the CPD approach. Additionally, given the multi-dimensional and complex nature of sustainable construction, it is important to further explore how applicable and adaptable CPD is in different construction environments.                  

Thank you very much for this comment, please kindly see page 30 paragraph 7

 

Future research should prioritize incorporating more real-world studies comparing CPD with other project delivery methods. Highlighting successful implementations of ECI would offer a fuller evaluation of CPD's practical advantages and limitations. Furthermore, due to the multifaceted and intricate nature of sustainable construction, it's crucial to investigate the applicability and adaptability of CPD in various construction settings

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study aims to identify influential publications, the advantages and disadvantages of CPD, and the most suitable CPD technique for sustainable construction. The methodology used was a bibliometric analysis and literature review. The findings can guide industry professionals, researchers, and policymakers in collaborative project delivery methods and sustainable construction. To contribute to the study, the following improvements are suggested:

1.       Could you elaborate on the process of identifying relevant articles in the inclusion criteria (as shown in Figures 1 and 2)? Specifically, how was the common work verified across the two databases?

2.       In Figure 11, remove “graph title” from the graphs or add a title

3.       Figure 12 is difficult to read clearly. Could you try to improve?

4.       Before Figure 15, inserting a text presenting its content is suggested.

5.       It is suggested that tables with better graphic quality be created for all figures that are tables and that they be named tables and not figures.

 

6.       It is suggested to present the limitations of the study and briefly indicate how the research can proceed

Author Response

Thank you very much for all your comments I appreciate them very much, please, kindly see below all my response to your comments I am grateful.

1. Could you elaborate on the process of identifying relevant articles in the inclusion criteria (as shown in Figures 1 and 2)? Specifically, how was the common work verified across the two databases?

 

Please see page 7 inline to your  comments; Scopus facilitataed the use of Biliometric analysis using R which is a powerful statistical computing language which is used to perform complex data analysis and visualizations on bibliographic data which helped in Measuring  productivity, Analyzing Impact, Identifying Key Authors and Institutions,Mapping Networks,Detecting Research Trends, Comparing Research Output, and Understanding Publication Patterns. While google scholar facilitated the traditional literature review which enhanced the review on advantages and disadvantages of IPD DB and CMAR.

2. In Figure 11, remove “graph title” from the graphs or add a title. Please see page 16, Thank you very much I have removed the graph title as suggested.
3. Figure 12 is difficult to read clearly. Could you try to improve? Thank you very much; please see page 17 I have improved the quality of the figure as suggested.

 

4. Before Figure 15, inserting a text presenting its content is suggested. Please see page 19; The findings highlight the comparative advantages and disadvantages of Integrated Project Delivery (IPD), Design-Build (DB), and Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) methodologies in the context of construction projects. Each delivery method thus presents unique opportunities and challenges for advancing sustainable construction, necessitating careful selection based on project-specific sustainability objectives
5. It is suggested that tables with better graphic quality be created for all figures that are tables and that they be named tables and not figures; As suggested please see page 20,21,22,23,2425,26,27,28 Please as suggested I have change all the figures into tables for better quality.
6. It is suggested to present the limitations of the study and briefly indicate how the research can proceed; As suggested please see page 29(last paragraph) -30 (first paragraph), this study has several limitations that warrant consideration. Firstly, the scope of this research was confined to a bibliometric analysis and a traditional literature review. While these methods provide valuable insights into the trends and general patterns in the literature, they do not offer the in-depth synthesis of data that meta-analyses do, which could combine results from multiple studies for a more comprehensive understanding.

Additionally, the research did not extensively explore the critical success factors for sustainable construction. This area is crucial for developing actionable strategies in the field, and its omission means that the findings might not fully address some of the more nuanced aspects of the topic that are vital for practical application.

Lastly, the study was limited to papers available up until 2023. As a result, it does not account for ongoing research and future publications that may provide new insights or contradict the findings presented here

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revision largely follows the reviewers' comments. I think the paper is up to standard and acceptable. Please also note that there is a typo at page 9 "(200-2023)".