Study on the Improvement Strategy of Trust Level between Owner and PMC Contractor Based on System Dynamics Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General Comments

This study investigates the factors influencing the trust relationship between owners and Project Management Contracting (PMC) contractors in the context of China’s construction sector. The paper is well structured and oriented and follows a step by step procedure to achieve the desired objectives. The methodology adopted in the study (systems dynamics theory coupled with interviews conducted on senior experts involved in major PMC projects) is appropriate for the theme being investigated and the reviewed literature in construction project management and systems dynamics theory is authoritative and representative of the research areas. The results of the quantitative simulations are presented and commented upon and the figures and tables add to the clarity of the research. The “Conclusions” seem to follow from the work reported and some theoretical implications of the study are drawn. In my opinion, the design of the model and its subsequent calibration to reflect rea-world behaviour is the strongest part of the research.

However, I am of the view that the “Discussions” drction of the text needs better elaboration. In this section, the authors rehearse the main results of the study presented in Subsection 3.3 and Section 5, which are important in their own right. I think that the main results of the research should also be put in perspective, highlighting the commonalities and differences with prior ones in the literature pertaining to both China and the international contexts of the construction industry. This would be to the benefit of the international reader.  This aspect also needs to be articulated with the arguments expressed in the concluding section regarding the theoretical implications of the study.

Detailed Comments:

-          Page 4, Section 2.1, lines 93-96. “… PMC contractor can realize the value-added of the project by playing the professional advantages, which is more suitable for water conservancy projects with large project scale, high technical difficulty, the owner of the project consists of multiple units of the government and the organizational relationship is more complicated…….” Does this research address water conservancy projects only? This aspect needs clarification/contextualization.

-          I think Subsection 3.3 “Initial Simulation Results” should be rewritten as Section 4 “Initial Simulation Results”. Section 4 is missing in the text.

-          I would suggest that a paragraph stating the organisation of the paper should de added at the end of Section 1 - “Introduction”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I feel that the author has picked up an interesting area of research after reading the article i would like to give the following suggestions:

The authors are working on improving trust levels between the owner and contractor, my observation is that the problem is not clearly defined in the introduction section. The problem can be defined by research that has been performed in the past and authors can use the following themes as search queries to identify more relevant recent references to their topic:

"Enablers of collaboration’ among the participants in construction projects"

"Factors affecting contractor’s performance in lowest bid award construction projects"

"Power and dependence for collaboration among construction project participants"

"Evaluating the impact of constraints on project success"

This will help the authors to identify the problem in client contractor relationship and the level of trust. Further it will also help in determining the contribution of this study to the body of knowledge. As in the present scenario the study is limited to China. But the readability of study will increase if the problem is defined from an international perspective and then a solution is provided considering Chine as an example to show the way to improve the level of trust. 

the above issue discussed is same for the literature review part here the narrative i also a bit unclear. 

A discussion section should be elaborated, and more references should be added to this part

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf