Minimizing Cost Overrun in Rail Projects through 5D-BIM: A Conceptual Governance Framework

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study develops a conceptual framework to improve project delivery process and minimize cost overrun based on 5D-BIM for rail projects. Overall, despite the paper is well-written, there are critical issues in the manuscript. The most important problem in this paper is its novelty. There are tens of studies that proposed 5D-BIM framework, probably with more enhanced analysis steps. The difference of this study and contributions to practice different than the other studies are not well explained, if any. Example studies are as follows: Lu, Q., Won, J., & Cheng, J. C. (2016). A financial decision making framework for construction projects based on 5D Building Information Modeling (BIM). International Journal of Project Management, 34(1), 3-21., Ranjbar, A. A., Ansari, R., Taherkhani, R., & Hosseini, M. R. (2021). Developing a novel cash flow risk analysis framework for construction projects based on 5D BIM. Journal of Building Engineering, 44, 103341. It is also questionable that the authors did not perform a robust literature review. After the introduction, there must be a review section for such an extended topic (past research studies and their deficiencies). Besides, the proposed conceptual model is developed only based on the context of Victoria, which is another issue in the manuscript. Many sections in the manuscript seems to be a textbook rather than a research paper. Many parts of the manuscript should be merged or removed. A more nuanced structuring of the paper would be better. The authors should focus on the context of the paper rather than addressing many aspects of 5D BIM.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is interesting and analyses the application of BIM in infrastructure rail projects financed by various Governments. It also presents a review of the literature with a description of some standards and software aspects with a list of solutions as suggestions.

Remarks:

In line 401 Referencing format problem - "Error! Reference source not found. shows the key 5D-BIM implementation... "

In line 992 Misslieading assumption from other references that CDE for BIM projects can be based on Point, Google Drive, or OneDrive, because they do not correspond to BIM application standards - "CDE tools vary from basic collaboration tools like SharePoint, Google Drive, or OneDrive  to sophisticated, advanced platforms such as ProjectWise, Procore, or Aconex (Oracle)..."

Lots of missing reference formatting and full reference details such as in line 1248 "111. (2019) Vision for the Future and Roadmap to BIM7..." and much more (see MDPI suggestions and examples).

Time and cost analysis of BIM software, cost-calculating solutions and increased BIM competence (training) can be a great practical benefit for the article together as detailed conclusions results based on comparison results.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a conceptual framework that encompasses a set of elements including project governance, BIM policies and standards, digital platforms, BIM LOD, cost estimation classification, and continuous improvement. It also provides an examination of the challenges and solutions related to implementing 5D Building Information Modeling (BIM) in large rail projects for enhanced cost management and control. 

 

The paper provides an extensive literature review, offering a solid theoretical foundation for the study. However, it might benefit from a more critical analysis of existing frameworks, perhaps highlighting more distinct gaps that this research addresses.

 

The research methodology, involving a case study in Victoria, Australia, is a strong aspect of the paper. The detailed policy and document analysis add depth to the study. However, further clarification on the selection criteria for the documents and a more detailed description of the analysis process would enhance the methodological transparency.

 

The study's practical implications are clear and valuable, especially the identification of key implementation challenges. This insight is crucial for practitioners and policymakers. Future work might consider more specific recommendations or action plans for overcoming these challenges.

 

The paper's approach to integrating 5D-BIM with a governance perspective is innovative. However, it would be beneficial to more explicitly state how this research differs from or improves upon existing models or frameworks in the literature.

 

While the focus on Victorian rail projects provides in-depth regional insights, it also limits the study's generalizability. Discussing how this framework could be adapted or tested in other geopolitical contexts would be a valuable addition.

 

The paper is technically sound, with a good understanding of 5D-BIM and its implications in rail projects. However, more detailed explanations or examples of the BIM elements in practice would be beneficial for readers less familiar with the topic.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have conducted a great deal of work to address my comments. I appreciate their efforts. Most of my concerns are now minimized.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. We are glad to hear that our response is acceptable.