Assessment of Construction Risks in Projects Funded by External Sources in Jordan during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
The main problem of this study is its uniqueness. The study does not propose a new methodology for risk assessment. The only contribution of this study can be considered as the new risk factors specific to projects funded by external sources and pandemic conditions. However, when we check the risk list, I cannot see another risk factor specific to projects funded by external sources. I admit that the authors modified some factors considering pandemic conditions, but still, these factors were considered under different names. Consequently, I think this study's contribution to literature is limited. I have also some points that should be considered by the authors to improve the study as below.
1. The study title should be changed to "Assessment of external construction risks" since the researchers used PESTEL.
2. The authors explained why we should consider these projects specifically by stating "Therefore, construction projects funded by external sources, which are characterized from other types of projects by high compliance with the terms of the project tender, were more vulnerable to these risks." However, this is an internal issue. Therefore, this can explain the different internal risks not external risks.
3. The authors explained why they focused on external risks by stating that "Internal risks are specific to the company or project, which are easy to deal with when data of previous similar works or projects is available to use as examples". But we do not have similar projects performed during the pandemic. Therefore, we cannot say that "we should focus on external risks since we have similar projects". In other words, I do not think the justification for the usage of PESTEL is enough. The authors should justify why they use PESTEL.
4. The paragraph between lines 148-161 should be in the introduction.
5. According to the literature, there are studies on risk assessment in the construction industry. But I do not understand how this literature contributes to this study. The authors should explain how they utilize these studies.
6. When I check the top risks in Table 1, most of the risks are internal risks. Therefore, the authors should perform a literature survey focusing on construction risks that emerged during the pandemic and external risks. Also, most of them are outdated.
7. The research methodology is not described elaborately. Many questions arose when I was reading this part. For instance, How was the literature survey conducted? How were these studies identified as relevant? How are the risk factors categorized? Which ones were modified? Who these experts are? How did you consult these experts? How did you eliminate some factors?
8. Although this study was conducted for projects funded by external sources, I did not see risk factors specific to these projects. We can include specific risk factors, such as "the relationship between the local government and foreign country", "cultural differences between the financier and the local construction companies" and so on.
9. The authors should state "experience of the respondents in the construction sector, in construction projects financed externally, and in risk management".
The language can be improved.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
The main problem of this study is its uniqueness. The study does not propose a new methodology for risk assessment. The only contribution of this study can be considered as the new risk factors specific to projects funded by external sources and pandemic conditions. However, when we check the risk list, I cannot see another risk factor specific to projects funded by external sources. I admit that the authors modified some factors considering pandemic conditions, but still, these factors were considered under different names. Consequently, I think this study's contribution to literature is limited. I have also some points that should be considered by the authors to improve the study as below.
Response: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the valuable comments and suggestions and will do their best to satisfy his expectations. The authors tried to combine research methods that may help to achieve the research objectives. The authors combined review of related literature, the consultation with experts, the experiences of the authors in the field, and the questionnaire survey with practitioners to identify and assess the risk factors. Furthermore, PESTLE technique was used to organize and categorize the risk factors. In this study, the analysis used the probability of occurrence, severity to project cost and severity to project schedule, and the results were presented by using Risk Assessment Tool (RAT) and Risk Importance (RI) on project cost and schedule.
Point 1: The study title should be changed to "Assessment of external construction risks" since the researchers used PESTEL.
Response 1: The PESTLE technique is mainly used for external risks, but changing the title to “Assessment of External Construction Risks in Projects Funded by External Sources in Jordan during the COVID-19 Pandemic” will make the title longer and the term external will be repeated twice. Therefore, the authors do not recommend modifying the title.
Point 2: The authors explained why we should consider these projects specifically by stating "Therefore, construction projects funded by external sources, which are characterized from other types of projects by high compliance with the terms of the project tender, were more vulnerable to these risks." However, this is an internal issue. Therefore, this can explain the different internal risks not external risks.
Response 2: The authors believe that high compliance with project tender terms is not specific for a company or a project, but it can be considered as an external issue that is imposed by external funding providers. In this case, the authors believe that some risks may be more sensitive and may have an impact on future financing opportunities.
Point 3: The authors explained why they focused on external risks by stating that "Internal risks are specific to the company or project, which are easy to deal with when data of previous similar works or projects is available to use as examples". But we do not have similar projects performed during the pandemic. Therefore, we cannot say that "we should focus on external risks since we have similar projects". In other words, I do not think the justification for the usage of PESTEL is enough. The authors should justify why they use PESTEL.
Response 3: Additional justification for the use of PESTEL has been added. Please see the last three sentences in section 1.
PESTLE is adopted in this research due to its comprehensive framework, which provides an effective tool to identify, investigate, assess, and categorize factors in the macro environment [16,18,19]. Moreover, PESTLE is a simple technique with which many of the people engaged in managerial positions are familiar. Therefore, using the PESTLE technique makes the results of this study more readable and usable for project stakeholders.
Point 4: The paragraph between lines 148-161 should be in the introduction.
Response 4: The paragraph was moved to the introduction/paragraph 1.
Point 5: According to the literature, there are studies on risk assessment in the construction industry. But I do not understand how this literature contributes to this study. The authors should explain how they utilize these studies.
Response 5: Explanation was added to section 2 (Literature Review), sub-section 2.2. in the last two paragraphs.
Point 6: When I check the top risks in Table 1, most of the risks are internal risks. Therefore, the authors should perform a literature survey focusing on construction risks that emerged during the pandemic and external risks. Also, most of them are outdated.
Response 6: Most of previous literature combines internal risks with external risks. However, the current study concentrated more on external risks, which in the opinion of authors are more important to deal with in this study. An additional sub-section (2.2.) was added to the literature review section to provide review of recent research that emerged during the pandemic.
Point 7: The research methodology is not described elaborately. Many questions arose when I was reading this part. For instance, how was the literature survey conducted? How were these studies identified as relevant? How are the risk factors categorized? Which ones were modified? Who these experts are? How did you consult these experts? How did you eliminate some factors?
Response 7: More contents have been added to sections 2.3. and 3.1. to meet the reviewer requirements.
Point 8: Although this study was conducted for projects funded by external sources, I did not see risk factors specific to these projects. We can include specific risk factors, such as "the relationship between the local government and foreign country", "cultural differences between the financier and the local construction companies" and so on.
Response 8: The authors have included the risks that have been approved by the experts of the study. Other options of risk factors have not been considered by the experts as important risks in terms of severity or probability of occurrence.
Point 9: The authors should state "experience of the respondents in the construction sector, in construction projects financed externally, and in risk management".
Response 9: Description of the experiences of respondents has been added to section 3.1 (Characteristics of Respondents).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
This study investigates risk factors encountered in construction projects funded by external sources. Jordan was the case country used in this study and risks were categorized based on PESTEL framework. Overall, this study has a merit, but the following contexts should be addressed before it can be published:
1. Although the study appears to address assessment of risks during COVID-19 pandemic, it does not indicate any implications regarding the pandemic. How can construction companies respond to the most significant risks to be resilient for potential future pandemics? Please address them in abstract (briefly), introduction, and conclusion.
2. Please summarize the novelty of the study in abstract.
3. Please revise the first paragraph of the introduction. Try to focus on other aspects that is related to the study objective. Provide reasons for the significance of the research. I am OK with the existing materials, but increasing population alone seems not to be enough.
4. Line 38 (Figure 1 instead of Figure 2?)
5. Why there is such a decline in Figure 1 from 2014 to 2020?
6. Please provide a fundamental basis of PESTEL framework in 2. Literature review section. What is the origin of PESTEL? What the PESTEL originally aims to? Why is it developed? And at the end, why it is suitable for this study? Why not other frameworks but PESTEL? It should be provided in a separated review section.
7. Please provide a separated review section that includes studies that addresses risks in construction projects due to pandemic. There are hundreds of papers dealing with this.
8. Why you highlighted 4 research in Table 1, in green? Please write the reason at review section.
9. Overall, introduction and review sections do not cover enough amount of research.
1. How did you identify studies in Table 2? Why not others but these studies?
1. Line 168, provide details of experts.
1. Why four-point likert scale (line 182) instead of much more commonly used 5 or 7 point scale?
1. In figure 5, why it is “low” when “severity = 4, probability = 1” while it is “moderate” when “severity = 1, probability = 4”. Isn’t it severity x probability.
1. It is very hard to differentiate factors in Figure 7. Please provide bigger pictures so that we can see which risk appears where.
1. You should separate discussion and conclusion. You can merge recommendations and conclusion. In discussion, please provide more research that address how construction companies can become more resilient for the potential future outbreaks. In conclusion, you should address the criticality of the research.
1. Why you considered only time and cost? Why not other criteria such as quality, safety, communication etc.?
Satisfactory.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
This study investigates risk factors encountered in construction projects funded by external sources. Jordan was the case country used in this study and risks were categorized based on PESTEL framework. Overall, this study has a merit, but the following contexts should be addressed before it can be published:
Point 1: Although the study appears to address assessment of risks during COVID-19 pandemic, it does not indicate any implications regarding the pandemic. How can construction companies respond to the most significant risks to be resilient for potential future pandemics? Please address them in abstract (briefly), introduction, and conclusion.
Response 1: The recommendations section proposed six points that provide instructions and procedures to be applied by the different parties of the construction projects to deal with the risk factors associated with any future pandemic. Furthermore, additional recent research has been added to the Literature Review section (sub-section 2.2.) to provide examples on how companies can respond to risks associated with the pandemic.
Point 2: Please summarize the novelty of the study in abstract.
Response 2: Additional contents about the novelty of the study have been added to the Abstract section.
Point 3: Please revise the first paragraph of the introduction. Try to focus on other aspects that is related to the study objective. Provide reasons for the significance of the research. I am OK with the existing materials, but increasing population alone seems not to be enough.
Response 3: Additional contents have been added to the first paragraph of the introduction to provide more reasons to the significance of the research.
Point 4: Line 38 (Figure 1 instead of Figure 2?)
Response 4: Changed to Figure 1.
Point 5: Why there is such a decline in Figure 1 from 2014 to 2020?
Response 5: A sentence has been added before Figure 1 to show why the variations in the annual volume of public construction projects may occur over the years.
Point 6: Please provide a fundamental basis of PESTEL framework in 2. Literature review section. What is the origin of PESTEL? What the PESTEL originally aims to? Why is it developed? And at the end, why it is suitable for this study? Why not other frameworks but PESTEL? It should be provided in a separated review section.
Response 6: The details requested by the reviewer have been provided in the last paragraph of the Introduction section.
Point 7: Please provide a separated review section that includes studies that addresses risks in construction projects due to pandemic. There are hundreds of papers dealing with this.
Response 7: A separate sub-section (2.2) in the Literature Review section has been added to review literature related to risks in construction projects due to pandemic.
Point 8: Why you highlighted 4 research in Table 1, in green? Please write the reason at review section.
Response 8: The green highlighting has been removed. It was used to show the amendments to a previous draft of the paper.
Point 9: Overall, introduction and review sections do not cover enough amount of research.
Response 9: New contents have been added to the introduction and review sections.
Point 10: How did you identify studies in Table 2? Why not others but these studies?
Response 10: Contents have been added to section 2.3 to show how and why the studies in Table 2 were identified.
Point 11: Line 168, provide details of experts.
Response 11: Details of experts have been added to section 2.3
Point 12: Why four-point likert scale (line 182) instead of much more commonly used 5 or 7 point scale?
Response 12: The reasons for using the four-point Likert scale have been added at the last paragraph of section 2.3.
Point 13: In figure 5, why it is “low” when “severity = 4, probability = 1” while it is “moderate” when “severity = 1, probability = 4”. Isn’t it severity x probability.
Response 13: Figure 5 has been modified to satisfy the reviewer opinion. The modification has been also applied to Figures 6 and 7.
Point 14: It is very hard to differentiate factors in Figure 7. Please provide bigger pictures so that we can see which risk appears where.
Response 14: Figure 7 has been separated into two figures. In addition, the values have been moved carefully to remove any overlaps.
Point 15: You should separate discussion and conclusion. You can merge recommendations and conclusion.
In discussion, please provide more research that address how construction companies can become more resilient for the potential future outbreaks.
In conclusion, you should address the criticality of the research.
Response 15: Modifications have been applied according to the reviewer comments. Titles of the discussion, conclusion and recommendations sections have been modified.
References have been added in the discussion section to show how construction companies can become more resilient to future outbreaks.
More contents have been added to the conclusion to address the criticality of the research.
Point 16: Why you considered only time and cost? Why not other criteria such as quality, safety, communication etc.?
Response 16: The recommendation of the reviewer has been added to the recommendations for future research. In the current study, adding more criteria will make the questionnaire survey too long that may negatively affect the response rate. The authors believe that the two assessed criteria are the most important criteria and are adequate to the current study.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The reviewer suggests accepting this paper with minor modifications. The recommendations are provided as follows.
1. The reviewer recommends writing the introduction more concisely. The meaning of Figure 1 presented is unclear and may be replaced by a concise description in the text. In addition, the paragraph on the COVID-19 situation in Jordan needs to be somewhat reduced.
2. The configurations in Chapters 2, 3, and 4 need to be partially modified. It is recommended that the identification of risk factors in Section 3.1 be organized into the same chapter in relation to the literature review in Chapter 2. In addition, it is recommended that Chapter 3 be composed only of the contents of the research methodology based on Figure 2.
3. In section 3.1, additional explanation of added risk factors is required after consultation and recommendation from the experts.
4. Figure 7 is difficult to identify and lacks the relevant description. If it can be replaced by Table 3, please delete it.
5. The figure numbers presented in the text do not match.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
The reviewer suggests accepting this paper with minor modifications. The recommendations are provided as follows.
Point 1: The reviewer recommends writing the introduction more concisely. The meaning of Figure 1 presented is unclear and may be replaced by a concise description in the text. In addition, the paragraph on the COVID-19 situation in Jordan needs to be somewhat reduced.
Response 1: The meaning of Figure 1 has been modified to become more concise. The paragraph on the COVID-19 situation in Jordan has been reduced.
Point 2: The configurations in Chapters 2, 3, and 4 need to be partially modified. It is recommended that the identification of risk factors in Section 3.1 be organized into the same chapter in relation to the literature review in Chapter 2. In addition, it is recommended that Chapter 3 be composed only of the contents of the research methodology based on Figure 2.
Response 2: The configurations of the chapters have been modified. The identification of risk factors have been moved to the Literature Review section (sub-section 2.3). Chapter 3 now includes only the methodology used for the evaluation of risk factors and the characteristics of the survey participants.
Point 3: In section 3.1, additional explanation of added risk factors is required after consultation and recommendation from the experts.
Response 3: Additional explanation has been added to section 2.3 as requested by the reviewer.
Point 4: Figure 7 is difficult to identify and lacks the relevant description. If it can be replaced by Table 3, please delete it.
Response 4: Figure 7 has been separated into two clear figures, which are easy to read and understand. Figure 7 analyzes results using Risk Assessment Tool (RAT) while Table 3 uses Importance Indicator (II) and ranking according to Risk Importance (RI). So, Figure 7 and Table 3 show different methods of analyses.
Point 5: The figure numbers presented in the text do not match.
Response 5: All the figure numbers in the text have been checked and corrected.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
I read the responses of the authors, however, their justification for uniqueness is not enough. Neither combining different sources nor using PESTEL is not unique. Only uniqueness can be the type of the project, however when we examine the paper, I cannot see any risk factor specific to this project type.
I do not understand how external risks and external sources are implying the same things.
The authors stated that "Search terms were proposed using the keywords ‘Risk’ and ‘Construction’. The searched articles were screened and filtered to select the research that most related to the current study and contained adequate details of risk factors." I also searched these two terms, and the google scholar returns about 5.700.000 results. I really do not understand how the researchers screened all these studies. Besides, they provided limited information about the demographic structure of the experts. Also, how they consulted the experts, what they represented to the experts, how the experts evaluated these data are not explained. Still, the methodology is so vague.
Unfortunately, the authors cannot reply most of the comments. The research question can be interesting and unique, however, the authors did not propose any new risk factors and did not evaluate these factors by using a new methodology.
I have no comment.
Author Response
Thank you very much for the valuable comments.
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
The authors addressed my comments clearly.
Fine.
Author Response
Thank you very much for the valuable comments.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
I have no further comments.
Author Response
Thank you very much for the valuable comments.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The reviewer thanks the authors for improving their manuscript; however, it is not still suitable for publication. Some of the reviewer’s concerns are:
1) lack of reviewing adequate literature on this topic—authors were asked to review recently published papers on this topic, while non of the added references in Table 1 are published in 2022;
2) presenting several irrelevant figures as mentioned earlier.
3) inconsistency in Tables— 10 references are provided in Table 1 out of which only 5 of them are used in Table 2. Also, reference 31 which is used in Table 2 is not provided in Table 1.
4) authors are not expected to provide recommendations. Also, there are several references have been cited in section 6 which are not consistent with the authors' claim.
5) conclusions are not clear and must be rewritten.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed my comments.
By selecting the second option, I wanted them to do another proofreading of the work to eliminate grammatical errors.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript’s topic is interesting and offers sufficient value for a research paper. Also, the manuscript follows a relatively smooth flow and offers an acceptable structure. The manuscript’s structure and organization are relatively decent as well. This reviewer recommends the following comments to enhance the quality and readability of the manuscript:
The literature section can be shortened without compromising its content and be presented more concisely.
The authors may need further elaborate on the impacts of political, economic, social, legal, technological, and environmental parameters.
The authors may need to provide information on any missing parameters they have not accommodated in Table 2. Also, they may need to provide sufficient justification for each of the mentioned parameters.
In terms of the characteristics of respondents, the authors may need to be more accurate when providing quantitative information. Using terms such as around two-thirds may not seem fully scientific.
Figure 7 needs further elaboration. The authors may need to explain more information on this figure to increase the readability for readers.
Although the authors have mentioned a few, more research limitations and future research directions may be provided.
