Building-as-a-Service: Theoretical Foundations and Conceptual Framework

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The model needs validation.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: The model needs validation.

 

Response 1: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. We understand the highlighting and the resulting need for validation. Validation is a major concern for us in the ongoing process. However, this has not been part of this paper so far and would also go beyond the scope of this paper. Yet, we have included a case study from China, which applicates a very similar model to show the applicability, feasibility and probability of such a model and conceptual framework.

Nevertheless, a validation with several case studies is part of the next paper in which these points will be specifically addressed. Our aim was to establish the framework according to Design Science Research approaches and we will test it using one or more case studies in the following research and will be delighted to share and discuss the outcomes with you.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Few improvements can be made to the paper:

1) Discuss more on the related works and how this discussion leads to your research gaps, problems and aims.

2) Discuss aims and main contributions in the introduction.

3) Provide a good discussion on the related works.

3) Simulate or case study related to your BaaS conceptual framework, and discuss the flow of your simulation.

4) Discuss the simulation/case study results.

All the best.

Thanks 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: 1) Discuss more on the related works and how this discussion leads to your research gaps, problems and aims.

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. We revised the paper thoroughly and added more information about research gaps, problems and aims as requested.

Point 2: 2) Discuss aims and main contributions in the introduction.

Response 2: Thank you for the valuable input. We have taken this into account accordingly in the introduction.

Point 3: 3) Provide a good discussion on the related works.

Response 3: Dear Reviewer, thank you again for the input. We completely revised the paper, added several paragraphs and adjusted the figures.

Point 3 (sic!): 3) Simulate or case study related to your BaaS conceptual framework, and discuss the flow of your simulation.

Response 3: Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for that input. We have revised the image without losing sight of the overall context. We hope that this new, clearer presentation is more comprehensible. Also, we have added a description of the general process (section 5.1) and added a case study of a hospital in China (section 5.3), which demonstrates the usability, applicability and feasibility of this concept. More case studies will be considered in the next part of this research series. We will be delighted to share and discuss the outcomes with you from academia and the industry participants involved in the development of the study.

Point 4 (sic!): 4) Discuss the simulation/case study results.

Response 4: We understand the highlighting and the resulting need for validation. Validation is a major concern for us in the ongoing process. However, this has not been part of this paper so far and would also go beyond the scope of this paper. Therefore, this validation is part of the next paper in which these points will be specifically addressed. Our aim was to establish the framework according to Design Science Research approaches and test it using one or more case studies. Therefore, we have added one case study of a Chinese Hospital. In the third part, more case studies will be added, the framework proven and adjusted.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I found this paper to be a very interesting read. My only comment would be for you to elaborate on the idea of the framework itself as the figure is not too clear, the (as service) parts, whether the building, infrastructure, or the platform is not clear in Figure 3, and how they mesh or add up, and if they are independent or co-dependent.

There is also a fresh paper, published in Sustainability, that may fit within your references on energy efficiency and whole building design from the perspective of usability. "Energy Efficiency through the Implementation of an AI Model to Predict Room Occupancy Based on Thermal Comfort Parameters" 

Again, thank you for the compelling read.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Point 1: I found this paper to be a very interesting read. My only comment would be for you to elaborate on the idea of the framework itself as the figure is not too clear, the (as service) parts, whether the building, infrastructure, or the platform is not clear in Figure 3, and how they mesh or add up, and if they are independent or co-dependent.

Response 1: Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for this positive review, which we appreciate very much. We have revised the image without losing sight of the overall context. We hope that this new, clearer presentation is more comprehensible. Also, we have added a description of the general process (section 5.1) and added a case study of a hospital in China (section 5.3), which demonstrates the usability, applicability and feasibility of this concept.

Point 2: There is also a fresh paper, published in Sustainability, that may fit within your references on energy efficiency and whole building design from the perspective of usability. "Energy Efficiency through the Implementation of an AI Model to Predict Room Occupancy Based on Thermal Comfort Parameters"

Again, thank you for the compelling read.

Response 2: Thank you very much for pointing out the paper. We will consider it in the development of the third part of this study.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revisions are acceptable and the comment is logical

Reviewer 2 Report

Great, now it improves a lot. All the best.