The Status of the Implementation of the Building Information Modeling Mandate in Poland: A Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is a consulting report on the development of the BIM industry for the Polish government. Although BIM is closely related to GIS development, this paper does not involve any theory or methodology. Therefore, this paper is not an academic paper and is not recommended for acceptance.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

no

Author Response

Comments 1: This paper is a consulting report on the development of the BIM industry for the Polish government. Although BIM is closely related to GIS development, this paper does not involve any theory or methodology. Therefore, this paper is not an academic paper and is not recommended for acceptance.

Response 1: It is difficult to comment on this negative review. In our (the authors') opinion, the article brings value to both the academic sector, the construction sector and the Polish AEC community. We have corrected the article according to the comments of reviewers 2 and 3. The article seems to be mature and worth publishing. We look forward to a positive reception by the academic editor and the editor-in-chief.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper reviews the current state of implementation of the BIM mandate in Poland and offers improvement suggestions, such as clarifying the responsibilities of relevant roles in the BIM process, proposing top-down and bottom-up actions must be taken，and some proposal for the government.

The following are suggestions for enhancing the paper:

(1) This paper provides an overview of the current state of implementation of BIM mandate in Poland, but further clarification of the specific factors hindering this implementation would highlight the relevance and precision of the author's recommendations.

(2) This paper mentions the advantages and opportunities brought by BIM implementation in Poland. It is recommended to include supporting data, such as the benefits achieved from local BIM pilot projects, to better illustrate the current state and value of BIM in Poland. This also would provide the Polish government with stronger evidence, encouraging them to adopt the proposed recommendations.

(3) To enhance the comprehensiveness of the literature review, it is suggested to include representative and recent studies and policy documents in the field of BIM, especially in Poland.

Author Response

Comments 1: This paper provides an overview of the current state of implementation of BIM mandate in Poland, but further clarification of the specific factors hindering this implementation would highlight the relevance and precision of the author's recommendations.

Response 1: Added. The hindering factors are highlighted at the end of the “Results” section.

Comments 2: This paper mentions the advantages and opportunities brought by BIM implementation in Poland. It is recommended to include supporting data, such as the benefits achieved from local BIM pilot projects, to better illustrate the current state and value of BIM in Poland. This also would provide the Polish government with stronger evidence, encouraging them to adopt the proposed recommendations.

Response 2: Added. Mentioned 3 BIM pilot projects with measurable benefits. 

Comments 3:To enhance the comprehensiveness of the literature review, it is suggested to include representative and recent studies and policy documents in the field of BIM, especially in Poland.

Response 3: Added 3 recent studies from 2024 that take into account the specifics of Polish realities.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Abstract

The abstract of this scientific contribution, while indicating much of the content to be presented in the manuscript, references somewhat marginal elements such as GIS. Given that the central theme is the literature review on BIM adoption in Poland, this topic could be a prerequisite but is only marginally addressed in the main text as it should be. I know that the reference was suggested in a previous review round, but I suggest mending the abstract from this because, also considering the title, it could generate confusion.

 

Introduction

The manuscript’s introduction describes a range of regulations, guidelines, and laws that paint a comprehensive picture of BIM adoption, particularly in public works at an international level. However, bibliographic references to the presented regulations are not always included. It is noteworthy, though, that the authors emphasize the strategies and actions taken for BIM adoption both by government institutions (top-down) and NGOs (bottom-up). Overall, the introduction appears thorough and reasonably lengthy. Moderate editing here.

 

Materials and Methods

The authors describe the process undertaken to gather the necessary data and write this manuscript through a literature analysis on BIM adoption in Poland. However, the themes in this section might benefit from clearer organization. The criteria for selecting literature (e.g., keyword search, abstract screening, full-text reading, data mining criteria) and the organization of the sources are not specified, although the sources are cited. The section then describes the entities and institutions involved in BIM adoption or those that have produced recommendation documentation. Following references to GIS, a brief state-of-the-art review describes the current state of BIM implementation in public works in Poland. These considerations might be better placed in the results section as they should interpret emerging content from the literature analysis, contributing to defining the authors’ research methodology. Since it was requested by reviewers it may considered as final without further details.

If the purpose of this presentation is to introduce the criteria leading to the suggestion of principles and methods for BIM implementation in Poland, particularly in public and private sectors as stated in the abstract, it would be more direct to frame which common elements and which potentially useful elements for defining future shared guidelines between the public and private sectors are evident from the cited sources. These are elements to be edited in this section.

 

Results and Discussion

After an initial and accurate description, including numerical data from the literature analysis, this section introduces the criteria considered important for adopting a broader shared strategy. Section 3.2 defines roles in the BIM process in line with ISO 19650. It needs to be assessed whether this description is necessary or if it should have been introduced earlier, possibly in Section 2. Figure 5 assists in understanding what the authors have highlighted from their investigation.

Section 3.4 presents the most interesting part of this contribution, with recommendations for BIM strategy adoption in Poland. Many topics converge in this section, including training, economic control, results monitoring, and experiences from other European countries such as the UK, Germany, and Italy. Some topics would benefit from more detail, such as BIM maturity certification for public and private sectors, including who should issue and hold it, and at what levels. While it is challenging to summarize this broad and complex topic in a brief paragraph, the identified themes provide valuable initial insights, particularly regarding the proposed single coordinating entity for BIM mandate. Some editing here.

 

Conclusions

The conclusions of this contribution succinctly summarize the main elements discussed. It would be valuable if the authors could also outline a possible timeline and cost estimation for the adoption of the suggested practices, even though potential profound regulatory changes are difficult to predict in terms of legislative and economic application.

Author Response

Comments 1: Abstract
The abstract of this scientific contribution, while indicating much of the content to be presented in the manuscript, references somewhat marginal elements such as GIS. Given that the central theme is the literature review on BIM adoption in Poland, this topic could be a prerequisite but is only marginally addressed in the main text as it should be. I know that the reference was suggested in a previous review round, but I suggest mending the abstract from this because, also considering the title, it could generate confusion.

Response 1: Removed this thread from the abstract.

Comments 2: Introduction
The manuscript’s introduction describes a range of regulations, guidelines, and laws that paint a comprehensive picture of BIM adoption, particularly in public works at an international level. However, bibliographic references to the presented regulations are not always included. It is noteworthy, though, that the authors emphasize the strategies and actions taken for BIM adoption both by government institutions (top-down) and NGOs (bottom-up). Overall, the introduction appears thorough and reasonably lengthy. Moderate editing here.

Response 2: Made sure all literature references are correct.

Comments 3: Materials and Methods
The authors describe the process undertaken to gather the necessary data and write this manuscript through a literature analysis on BIM adoption in Poland. However, the themes in this section might benefit from clearer organization. The criteria for selecting literature (e.g., keyword search, abstract screening, full-text reading, data mining criteria) and the organization of the sources are not specified, although the sources are cited. The section then describes the entities and institutions involved in BIM adoption or those that have produced recommendation documentation. Following references to GIS, a brief state-of-the-art review describes the current state of BIM implementation in public works in Poland. These considerations might be better placed in the results section as they should interpret emerging content from the literature analysis, contributing to defining the authors’ research methodology. Since it was requested by reviewers it may considered as final without further details.
If the purpose of this presentation is to introduce the criteria leading to the suggestion of principles and methods for BIM implementation in Poland, particularly in public and private sectors as stated in the abstract, it would be more direct to frame which common elements and which potentially useful elements for defining future shared guidelines between the public and private sectors are evident from the cited sources. These are elements to be edited in this section.

Response 3: This was a manual literature review, not a systematic one, hence the methodology. Added a section of text about common elements.

Comments 4: Results and Discussion
After an initial and accurate description, including numerical data from the literature analysis, this section introduces the criteria considered important for adopting a broader shared strategy. Section 3.2 defines roles in the BIM process in line with ISO 19650. It needs to be assessed whether this description is necessary or if it should have been introduced earlier, possibly in Section 2. Figure 5 assists in understanding what the authors have highlighted from their investigation.
Section 3.4 presents the most interesting part of this contribution, with recommendations for BIM strategy adoption in Poland. Many topics converge in this section, including training, economic control, results monitoring, and experiences from other European countries such as the UK, Germany, and Italy. Some topics would benefit from more detail, such as BIM maturity certification for public and private sectors, including who should issue and hold it, and at what levels. While it is challenging to summarize this broad and complex topic in a brief paragraph, the identified themes provide valuable initial insights, particularly regarding the proposed single coordinating entity for BIM mandate. Some editing here.

Response 4: Added a piece of text on BIM maturity testing and certification in section 3.4.

Comments 5: Conclusions
The conclusions of this contribution succinctly summarize the main elements discussed. It would be valuable if the authors could also outline a possible timeline and cost estimation for the adoption of the suggested practices, even though potential profound regulatory changes are difficult to predict in terms of legislative and economic application.

Response 5: Potential dates for the BIM strategy and adoption have been identified and it has been suggested that the financial forecast is difficult to determine. For this, a specific funded analysis or separate studies are needed.

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

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Major concerns:

1. For me, this paper is more like a discussion or opinion paper, lacking enough science value.

2   2. Please specify the novelty and significance of your work. Why is your study needed?  

     3. Please define the acronyms before their usage, such as “NGO”, “UK”, “SWOT”, and so forth.

     4. I am confused: “mandate BIM” or “BIM mandate”?

     5. Lines 38-52 need specific references.

     6. In “1. Introduction”, please summarize relevant academic studies/reviews similar to yours. There should be some studies published on this similar topic.

           7.  “normative and gray literature” What do you mean? Please specify.

      8. “2. Materials and Methods” need to be clearer. I would suggest adding a diagram to explain what methods you used for the research. Your current contents are not very related to “2. Materials and Methods”. I would suggest the coauthors refer to the structure and contents related to “Materials and Methods” in similar papers.

9    9. The structure of this paper may need to be reorganized. “2. Materials and Methods” should be differentiated from “3. Results and Discussion”.  

      10. Where are your results from? How did you obtain these results? You cannot just express your subjective judgements based on empty.

      11. How unique are these results and findings in Poland relative to those from other countries?  

      12. As a scientific paper/study, when making arguments, you need to give evidence, reasoning, or references.

      13. Your “4. Conclusions” need to be related to your “3. Results and Discussion”.

      14. “The top-down and bottom-up activities” I would suggest the authors elaborate more on these.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language used in this paper is decent.  

Author Response

/

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The content of this article focuses on the application, promotion, policy consultation, and recommendations of BIM (Building Information Modeling) in Poland, rather than directly related to the theory, methods, or technology of Geographic Information Technology. Although BIM technology itself intersects with Geographic Information Systems (GIS), this article focuses more on the implementation issues of BIM technology at the policy level and socio-economic background in a specific country (Poland), focusing on how to improve the adoption rate and application effectiveness of BIM technology through policy formulation, educational promotion, stakeholder coordination, and other means. Therefore, it is recommended not to accept.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

no comment

Author Response

/

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

Thank you for your effort in generating this review paper.

In general, the paper looks good and well-prepared and organized. The scientific sound to fill the knowledge gap is observed. However, the following may help to raise the quality of the paper.

1. There are several awkward sentences throughout the manuscript, particularly in the abstract.

2. The paper still missing further literature review papers to compare and show the knowledge gap clearly.

 

3. The implications is missing as well.

4. Please follow the journal guidelines for the type of the font inside the figure.

 

5. Proofreading and editing highly recommended. 

 

Hope the above helps.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please refer to my comments for further details.

Author Response

/

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf