Integrating Schedule Risk Analysis with Multi-Skilled Resource Scheduling to Improve Resource-Constrained Project Scheduling Problems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript is well-organized, but consists of several deficiencies:

1. Line 25 is a kind of repetition of Line 22.
2. Multiple claims are stated in the introduction without any reference. For instance, Lines 42 and 43.
3. The statement presenting in Line 40-41 is wrong. According to the conducted studies by Dao et al. (2017), the size of a project does not indicate the level of project complexity. (Dao, B., Kermanshachi, S., Shane, J., Anderson, S., and Hare, E., 2017. Exploring and assessing project complexity. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143(5), p.04016126.)
4. The case studies have short baseline duration. How about the mega-scale projects? It is needed to select small, middle, and mega-scale projects.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors deal with an interesting topic of project time management by integrating schedule risk analysis with multi-skilled resource scheduling to improve resource-constrained project scheduling problems. The approach is interesting and written very clearly. Although the topic is interesting, several minor methodological errors and text editing needs to be improved. These insufficiencies can be summed up as follows.

Suggestions for improvement:

• Check and improve the English language and grammar throughout the paper (check misspellings, hyphens, etc.), as well as all figures and tables (both must be readable, especially Fig. 1)
• The introduction does not provide clear research goals and hypotheses
• The literature review should be improved. This is the most evident in the reference list where a lot of them are correctly expressed according to the journal’s guide for authors
• The authors are urged to draw conclusions that are more specific. There should be a clear connection with the research problem, goals, and hypotheses

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript is significantly improved. The reviewer accept it for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf