Mitigating Co-Activity Conflicts and Resource Overallocation in Construction Projects: A Modular Heuristic Scheduling Approach with Primavera P6 EPPM Integration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The authors are encouraged to improve the clarity and correctness of the English language used throughout the manuscript. Some instances requiring correction include:

   - Abstract: Change "The tool incorporates with Primavera P6 EPPM" to "The tool incorporates Primavera P6 EPPM".

   - Abstract: Change "robust approach for construction project" to “robust approach to construction project”.

2. The literature review should be enriched by citing and discussing more related papers, especially those from the same journal to which the present manuscript has been submitted. Demonstrating the suitability of the considered journal for this manuscript is essential.

3. The authors should provide a more detailed description of the new contributions of the present work. In the current version, they simply state that they “propose an integrated approach that combines data from Primavera P6 and Synchro 4D with Optimizio”. Further elaboration will help readers better understand the novel contributions of the work.

4. The quality of Figures 1 and 2 on pages 5 and 6 needs improvement.

5. Clarification is needed regarding whether the benchmark instance described in section 2.2 was obtained from the literature. Please address this in the paper.

6. While the authors apply the proposed algorithm to a case problem in Section 3 and discuss it in the next section, it would be beneficial to evaluate the effectiveness of their proposed algorithm compared to other available approaches in the literature. This evaluation would enhance the quality of the paper's presentation.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. The authors are encouraged to improve the clarity and correctness of the English language used throughout the manuscript. Some instances requiring correction include:

   - Abstract: Change "The tool incorporates with Primavera P6 EPPM" to "The tool incorporates Primavera P6 EPPM".

   - Abstract: Change "robust approach for construction project" to “robust approach to construction project”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for this interesting contribution.

This is a very well-written paper. I try to summarize those pros and cons I see from my point of view:

 

Pros:

·       Innovative Integration: The paper is able to show that the scheduling algorithm has been integrated successfully with Primavera P6 EPPM, hence the existence of a space left for the construction project management.

·       Modularity and Adaptability: The modularised design of the algorithm is noteworthy.  This feature implies that the algorithm can be switched to different modes regarding various construction projects which increases its utility.

·       Practical Relevance: The emphasis on the settlement of the conflicts and the utilization of resources as much as possible takes a lot of meaning and gives practical answers to the problems commonly faced on the project site management.

 

Cons:

·       Comparative Analysis: The paper can be further enriched if it becomes more comprehensive by comparing existing scheduling with the algorithms proposed. Providing more clear examples for the benchmarks and or the case-studies featured can give more clarity to the algorithms.

·       Technical Details: Continuing the technical explanation of the algorithm, how it connects with the Synchro 4D and Optimizio systems, it gives the readers the understanding of functioning and wider spectrum usage.

·       Future Enhancements: Apart from the talked expediency of potential improvements and integrations that the paper discusses, there are no specific and clearly defined research directions or a detailed roadmap. Having a more precising rationale of what is to come would encourage the academia and practice to further consider and explore the field.

 

Apart from this, I would suggest:

-          Adding a case study or consensus algorithm functioning as an example to show how algorithm can work and what its practical benefits are.

-          Deepening on the restrictions and shortcomings connected with the algorithm structure and practice in order to present a holistic view.

-          Giving a more detailed description of the tool applying, its features, and if it is different or better than the existing answers.

 

 

Thanks again and best regards

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 addressed my concerns very well! 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for considering the previous comments.

The revised manuscript covered several comments made in the prior version. It comprises a functional comparative analysis that combines the data and provides illustrations and more explicit examples usually with comparison units. The complex technical details of the algorithm and its relationships are discussed in detail, thus increasing the reader's knowledge. Furthermore, the paper contains a case study and discusses the application benefits and challenges of the algorithm.

Nevertheless, the main issue I see is that the paper introduces only some improvements but leaves the reader without a specific and clear statement about further development.

 Kindest regards