A Synergetic Effect of the Integration of Lean, Sustainable Construction Practices and Alliance Contract on Operation Performance in the Indian Construction Industry
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1) Are the Integration benefit factors in Table 3 determined by literature and experts, or are they analyzed and summarized according to the factors in Table 2?
2) As mentioned above, there are 23 influencing factors in H1, H2 and H3. When the hypothesis test and confidence test are carried out in Section 4.1, how to establish the relationship between H1, H2 and H3 and each factor?
3) What role do the results of questionnaire survey play in the article? Is there any correlation with synergistic integration factors?
4) In Section 4.2, Improving efficiency: Does reducing cost and building waste belong to improving efficiency? Does a construction company reduce costs by reducing construction, machinery, labor or material costs? Does optimizing a construction project mean optimizing a construction project, a structural project? The scope of the construction project is too broad.
5) Improving the results of construction projects specifically refers to the communication of personnel during the construction process or the construction schedule? Is it a factor to improve project results?
6) In Section 4.2, there are discrepancies in the analysis and classification of each factor.
7) 4.2 discusses lean, sustainable construction practices and alliance contract. But 4.3 also analyzes the factors affecting lean implementation in Indian construction industry, which is slightly more obtrusive.
8) The SEM modeling only wrote the final result, and the structure Equation modelling did not explain in detail
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing the manuscript. The comments raised were addressed properly and attached as separate file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors Overall good contribution work through avoid general claims without context. E.g. Abstract: The first sentence is good but second and third sentence I would expect an account of previous applications of lean in construction and what the contributions were to date (high-level summary of the introduction). Introduction add a purpose statement, half a sentence on how this is addressed in this paper and overview of the sections of the rest paper. Context section. The first sentence is a high level definition without references and definitions or what Lean is subject to a lot of discussion. Add a definition that has been adopted and maybe elaborate on what waste is as this is not a coherent definition of waste in sustainability journal. This is potentially misleading with the construction paradigm section as here the material wastes are listed (e.g. lean wastes acronym TIM WOODS). I would have expected more literature discussion on the different survey items/factors (also previous studies of constructs) and the representation of the sample population particularly with the claims in the abstract. Robustness is not justified. FIndings are okay but the results should be discussed in how these mirrow previous studies, e.g. study in a new context finding similar insights as to different context or were there findings that are substantially new? Comments on the Quality of English LanguagePlease see above
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing the manuscript. The comments raised were addressed properly and attached as separate file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
