Supply Chain Management and Big Data Concept Effects on Economic Sustainability of Building Design and Project Planning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

- The subject addressed is within the scope of the journal.

- The introduction section is detailed, but needs a significant amount of reorganization. It could be strengthened by adding more recent references.

- More suitable title should be selected for the article.

- Abstract section should refer to the study findings, methodologies, discussion as well as conclusion. It is suggested to present the abstract in one 200-250 words paragraph.

- Please add as sentence or two to clearly recap how your study differs from what has already been done in literature to ascertain the contributions more strongly.

- However, the manuscript, in its present form, contains several weaknesses. Appropriate revisions to the following points should be undertaken in order to justify recommendation for publication.

-It is suggested to add articles entitled “Youneszadeh et al. Predicting Project Success in Residential Building Projects (RBPs) using Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs)”, “Ezirim & Okpoechi. Community-driven Development Strategy for Sustainable Infrastructure” and “Shaikh et al. The Role of Collaboration and Integration in the Supply Chain of Construction Industry” to the literature review.

- For readers to quickly catch your contribution, it would be better to highlight major difficulties and challenges, and your original achievements to overcome them, in a clearer way in abstract and introduction.

- This raises some concerns regarding the potential overlap with authors previous works. The authors should explicitly state the novel contribution of this work, the similarities and the differences of this work with their previous publications.

- Some key parameters are not mentioned. The rationale on the choice of the particular set of parameters should be explained with more details. Have the authors experimented with other sets of values? What are the sensitivities of these parameters on the results?

- Some assumptions are stated in various sections. Justifications should be provided on these assumptions. Evaluation on how they will affect the results should be made.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for the valuable feedback that we have made to improve our manuscript. Thanks also for the opportunity to improve our manuscript. All your proposed comments have been edited in the manuscript and are marked in green (exceptionally some are also yellow).

• The introduction section is detailed, but needs a significant amount of reorganization. It could be strengthened by adding more recent references. (Corected)
• More suitable title should be selected for the article. (The manuscript name has been slightly modified)
• Abstract section should refer to the study findings, methodologies, discussion as well as conclusion. It is suggested to present the abstract in one 200-250 words paragraph (Cerrected)
• Please add as sentence or two to clearly recap how your study differs from what has already been done in literature to ascertain the contributions more strongly. (Added, line: 65 - 70)
• It is suggested to add articles entitled. - Your proposed literature is very inspiring and informative. Therefore, the selected sources were supplemented (sources 13 to 15).
• And all other comments were improved

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 

 

This manuscript focuses on an important and trending topic of the impact of big data on the construction industry. The statistical analysis is valid and results are clearly presented. However, I have a few major concerns that need to addressed before it can be published. The introduction and literature review part can be shortened and made more concise. Figure 1 should definitely raise both editor’s and authors’ attention. The sample size needs to be further discussed. Please see my detailed comments:

1. Line 15, it should be “on one hand”
2. Line 15, requirements should be in singular form
3. Line 17, is it “challenges” or “opportunities”?
4. Line 24, “also…” I don’t quite get the sentence. Please try again.
5. Line 35, only one “and” is needed. You can consider using ,…,…, and structure. Just like Line 40-41.
6. Line 60, I would suggest replacing “the authors” with “[8]”.
7. Line 68, “increase” or “decrease”?
8. Line 93, what is BG?
9. big picture wise, the observation from Line 85-86 looks already an answer to the research questions. Could the authors explain why the research questions are still raised? In another word, what novelty does this study bring to the field?
10. Line 119-130, this paragraph can be shortened to be more concise and straight to the point. Please try again.
11. it is unacceptable to have an exactly same figure in a peer-reviewed paper from else where without any further input, even with citation. Besides, [25] link is not valid.
12. Line 247 and 252, just to make sure I understand it correctly, 1376 questionnaires were handed out and 55 were effectively collected?
13. the statistical analysis is valid. My only question on this part is the representativeness of the sample size if 55. The authors need to show in what way this 55 sample size is representative to what scale of a market. Regional? National? Local?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for the valuable feedback that we have made to improve our manuscript. Thanks also for the opportunity to improve our manuscript. All your proposed changes are incorporated in yellow.

• Line 15, it should be “on one hand” (Corrected)
• Line 15, requirements should be in singular form (Corrected)
• Line 17, is it “challenges” or “opportunities”? (Corrected)
• Line 24, “also…” I don’t quite get the sentence. Please try again. (Corrected)
• Line 35, only one “and” is needed. You can consider using ,…,…, and structure. Just like Line 40-41. (Corrected)
• Line 60, I would suggest replacing “the authors” with “[8]”. (Corrected)
• Line 68, “increase” or “decrease”? (Corrected)
• Line 93, what is BG? (Added and explained)
• big picture wise, the observation from Line 85-86 looks already an answer to the research questions. Could the authors explain why the research questions are still raised? In another word, what novelty does this study bring to the field? (Added and explained)
• Line 119-130, this paragraph can be shortened to be more concise and straight to the point. Please try again. (corrected)
• it is unacceptable to have an exactly same figure in a peer-reviewed paper from else where without any further input, even with citation. Besides, [25] link is not valid. (picture and some information was deleted. 
• Line 247 and 252, just to make sure I understand it correctly, 1376 questionnaires were handed out and 55 were effectively collected? 
• the statistical analysis is valid. My only question on this part is the representativeness of the sample size if 55. The authors need to show in what way this 55 sample size is representative to what scale of a market. Regional? National? Local? (Yes, many information about it it was added in line: 252-255) It is a national but small market. Given the size of the market (construction market in Slovakia, where there are about 5.5 million inhabitants and where there are only about 10 to 15 large construction companies and a few hundred medium-sized construction companies), this sample is representative.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for Applsci-1466709.

 

The paper discusses the application of Big Data concept and supply chain management systems in the sustainable design of buildings and project planning and construction. Generally, the paper is clear and very substantial. However, Some parts of it are wordy and long, which can be optimized.

 

• The abstract is wordy and long .The most important thing of the paper is discussing how the application of Big Data concept and supply chain management affects the “cost ”, the “time” and the “construction”. The description may be more concise probably ,making the theme, importance, research methods and objectives of the article clear at a glance.

 

• Page 2, line 66，67: “Construction project management and building design is a complex process that relies on data.” As far as I'm concerned，“building design rely on data” ，this statement is somewhat inaccurate. Maybe you can say:“building design and data are closely related.”

 

• The introduction is substantial, however related information about sustainable design of buildings and ecological sustainability in the research should be enhanced.

 

• All the graphs can be improved:Complete picture border, the two contrast pictures can be enlarged and placed up and down, Some figures are too compact in 4 and Fig.8.

 

• The conclusion needs to improve the accuracy of words. As stated in the first line 402:“materials can be incorporated into the design of a building” ,materials are always in the consideration of architects. Is it the material or the choice and transportation mode of the material, and so on?

 

• Some explanations in the conclusion with some examples and data comparison will be more intuitive and convincing, just like the previous discussion in the article.Maybe this makes the article more complete and credible than before.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for the valuable feedback that we have made to improve our manuscript. Thanks also for the opportunity to improve our manuscript. All your proposed changes are incorporated by different colors font.

- The abstract has been shortened and modified.
- The proposed substantive and verbal changes have been incorporated.
- Graphs and pictures have been modified.
- Discussion and benefits of work as well as explained methodological guidelines were added.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have successfully addressed all my concerns in the revised manuscript. Hence I recommend the acceptance of this paper.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much again for your valuable advice and comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

please renumber figures from 1

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much again for your valuable advice and comments.

We renumbered the figures.

All changes in the document, including minor grammar corrections, are highlighted in the document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx