Modeling Supply Chain Integration in an Integrated Project Delivery System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

According to author(s) “This study presents a VDT conceptual model for studying the performance of the supply chain relationship in an IPD system”. However, the manuscript do not integrate/include one single Supply Chain (SC) conceptual framework to understand holistically the scope of the relationships presented, nor describe it within the literature review included. From my perspective author(s) should present their analysis from a Supply Chain perspective to better place their article (as stated in the title). As such, they should include a Supply chain framework to better portray the supply chain integration discussed within the manuscript; otherwise the analysis presented becomes only an integrative model for information transfer in projects development. Author (s) should clarify these aspects.

The article adopts a case study analysis. However, neither the methodology nor the methodological relevance of its adoption is described in the manuscript. Author(s) should describe the methodology adopted and provide examples of previous works, as a way to support their analysis. Furthermore, author(s) should explain the benefits of adopting such methodology in this particular setting. Also, the data gathering tools (in-site interviews) for this analysis should be presented and the contexts of the selected companies described. The present version lacks of a coherent methodological description. One solution for this would be the inclusion of a new epigraph entitled “Methodology” containing the “context” of the companies selected (something quite relevant in case studies), the description of the companies (objects of study) selected, the methodology employed, the tools used to gather data, and the characteristics of the analysis performed (interviews, time of the interview, interviewees characteristics, location, and so on). Author(s) should better structure this inexistent section.

“The difference in the timing of integration of key participants stemmed from the level of integration” This type of narrative is at least confusing. I have read the article thoroughly and I still do not comprehend in which way the analysis presented (all the methods/systems employed) facilitates supply chain integration, from my perspective facilitates coordination of communication in project endeavors, but stating (as in the title) that this may affect/impact supply chain integration is at least excessive. A great effort should be done to better clarify this aspect.

The relational nature of the analysis presented in this study raises the service perspective of IPD, which includes consumers and suppliers into the business process, something that has been regarded from the servitization perspective. Author(s) should consider this perspective due to integrates the supply chain approach and divides supply chain into downstream and upstream activities, while considers ICTs as bridges to integrate both activities and streamline supply chain integration. See as example:

• Zarco, C. G., Bustinza, O., & Perez, V. F. (2016, February). Adding value: how to develop a servitisation strategy in civil engineering. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Civil Engineering (Vol. 169, No. 1, pp. 35-40). Thomas Telford Ltd.
• Galera‐Zarco, C., Morales‐Gallego, M., & Pérez‐Aróstegui, M. N. (2014). Servitization in Project‐Based Firms. Strategic Change, 23(5-6), 329-340.
• Vendrell-Herrero, F., Bustinza, O. F., & Opazo-Basaez, M. (2020). Information technologies and product-service innovation: The moderating role of service R&D team structure. Journal of Business Research.

Due to in the above points have been suggested the restructuring of literature review; integrating supply chain as the main perspective of this research. I deem necessary to suggest also a revised version of the “Conclusions” emerged from this research. The new epigraph should discuss results taking as a reference the new theoretical framework (literature review) and so link results with supporting literature or offer new perspectives not included within literature, opening avenues for future researches.  

I hope my comments help author(s) in improving this research, Good luck!

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Line 48, Why the authors consider VDT method is suitable for this study, how about the previous work?
2. Line 95, how to evaluate the 'max. value and reduce waste', and did the authors achieved this target?
3. Can the authors give more details about the validation process of the data obtained by the interview?
4. English is excellent.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This research addresses the necessary topic related to the design and configuration of organizations in the project-based production systems. In particular, the study focuses on implementing the Virtual Design team modeling and simulation tool to study the design and configuration of the IPD or IPD like project supply chains, which parameters of organization design and configuration influence the performance of project organizations and how. However, there is room for improvement in the presentation of this study, and in the following, suggestions are made.

1. General comments: 1) The information processing based view of organizations and design activity has been widely debated in the organization and design domains. It is interesting that authors do not mention the limitations of the information processing based view of organizations and design work. The basic assumptions that come with this view on reality heavily influence the modeling and simulation results. 2) The theoretical background is rather shallow and should be expanded. For example, the conceptualization of iteration as a form of waste is an oversimplification of the complex nature of design activity. It is not easy to decide what is an error in design and what is not. For understanding iteration in a design better, review the following article: Wynn, D.C. and Eckert, C.M., 2017. Perspectives on iteration in design and development. Research in Engineering Design, 28(2), pp.153-184. 3) Assumptions play an important role in modeling and simulations. Please make the assumptions and their implications explicit. 4) Make sure that all concepts and notions are explained and defined in the paper. For example, what is the volume of work, and what is the unit? What is the role of latency (right now it is not well explained)? 
2. VDT visual models: 1) The text is general and it is hard to see the connections to the figure presented. 2) It is hard to keep track of all the elements and relationships in Figure 3 and Figure 4. Consider some coding for helping the readers to better understand the explanation of the model and its representation on the figure. 3) Only notations for relationships are described, but what are the color-coding and the meaning of other elements? 4) What is the difference between the design and engineering clusters?
3. Results: The results are questionable, not well explained, and justified. It is exactly because of the assumptions made in the paper. For example, there is no waste in the healthcare project example. Authors themselves say that it is extremely unlikely but do not explain and justify it well. This, for example, shows that the assumptions on models, modeling, and simulation are not well explained and justified, including the implications and limitations.
4. Sensitivity analysis: The methodology and justification for changing the variables and for defining the different combinations of variables are not explained. The authors should consider following the design of experiments principles. 
5. The text in Figure 5 is broken. Please correct the figures.
6. Conclusions and Insights: Conclusions and insights (including implications) should be stated more clearly. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

COMMENTS TO AUTHOR(S)

Before starting my academic report, I would like to spend some words wishing that the author(s) and their loved ones are safe and healthy.

I appreciate the authors’ efforts in delivering an improved manuscript in this round. All my concerns have been addressed in this review. As suggested, the paper has been repositioned and narrative, coherence and analysis are much improved. Hence, my overall opinion of the manuscript is positive; Therefore, I consider the revised version of the manuscript suitable for being considered for publication. Congrats!

Reviewer 3 Report

Please review the references and make sure that references are following the same style. For example, in the new reference nr 14, the name of the author is capitalized.