A Three Methods Proactive Improvement Model for Buildings Construction Processes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- Present state of this article is more towards a construction report than a critically analysis article. Also a throughout English revision is required for this manuscript.
- The references have been provided for LG6 is mostly old one. Why there is no recent work regarding LG6? What is the limitation of this LG6 methods? Author mentioned that LG6 is potential for construction people but why they will use it?
- How the LG6 was performed in Excel is not clear. There is no equation, a clear mathematical process should be provided.
- Particularly the Green methodology is not making any thoughtful analysis.
- Section 4.3: how the LCA should be read? Present results are not much useful for scientific community.
- Better analysis is required for six sigma. Six sigma is more intense stuff than what is written over here.
- Conclusion section could be more articulate. There is no need to add reference in the conclusion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article “A Three Methods Proactive Improvement Model for Buildings Construction Processes” presents a model to support work planning in construction projects, which integrates the methodologies Lean, Green and 6-sigma. Broadly, the paper does not show a scientific approach, but rather exposes the functioning of a support tool. This tool can be interesting for construction project managers; however, results and conclusions do not imply an upgrade in knowledge. It seems an original work, which has not been published before.
Although the writing style is generally correct, it is advisable to review some sentences that are not easy to understand. The formal aspect of the text is appropriate and in accordance with the format of the journal. At the end of this text you can find some non-compliances. Since most of the references are outdated (22 out of 33), extending the number and updating them is recommended.
The introduction does not mention work that researches the waste currently produced in the construction sector to build the context for research. An adequate state of the art has not been constructed, nor has the contribution of his proposal been discussed in relation to existing research in this field. The usefulness of each methodology (lean, green and 6-sigma) has been described but no papers related to your manuscript have been cited. Furthermore, the most of the references (16 out of 21) are obsolete (prior to 2010). The section “background” could be integrated in Introduction section, as the journal suggest.
The methodology section repeats what methodologies make up the model and the objective of this work. The sub-sections define each of the phases of the DMAIC method without delving into, for example, some systematic process to collect activities needed in a construction project (huge problem in the planning phase), measure the performance of the resources consumed (materials, equipment and labour) and compare it with recognized standards, or based on what criteria the spreadsheet proposes alternatives to improve the performance of the process
The LG6 model would improve greatly if it assisted the user in detecting activities that do not add value to the construction process. Without such assistance, the model leaves the decision of which activities add value or not to the designer, which is how it is currently done. However, it is very interesting to incorporate the calculation of the sigma level that is reached with the current situation.
The proposed case study is very simple and perhaps does not allow us to explore more of the benefits of the LG6 model. Proposing a more complex case study related to a construction project can add value to this work. The results obtained from the case study have not been discussed.
You can add to the summary background or a brief description of the context that has motivated the research. Revise the keywords, I suggest you consider: Lean Construction; Six-Sigma; Green Building. Separate keywords with a semicolon and capitalize the first letter of each word. The reference style indicated in the template has not been used.
As far as the format of the text is concerned, generally speaking it can be said to be correct. Please check the spaces between words and some words that do not have the recommended font. Check the use of acronyms, as they are initially defined but later not used. The reference style is not the one proposed by the magazine, you can check it in the template. The tables do not have the format of the template and exceed the writing limits of the paper. You can correct this problem by naming them as figures. In table 3, the last row of the second column is not shown completely.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper has a very interesting topic. However, this reviewer believes that the paper can be improved by enhancing the literature review section. The broad topic of construction processes and also Six-Sigma has a lot to it and this reviewer suggests that author(s) enhance the literature review section by going beyond what it is right now.
This reviewer also suggests that authors be more careful in using general terms such as "construction processes" OR "improvement".
When possible, please be descriptive of your definition and context.
In overall, it is a good paper and is recommended for publication after the minor revision stated above.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In my opinion performing analysis using Excel is not good practice. Can author elaborate this with any other software tool?
I am still confused about the concrete equations which are still missing. even if you have performed this work in Excel but what equation was employed?
also clear future direction of this work is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article still does not have a research focus since the methodology and results have not been improved in this version. The paper shows how a tool developed by the authors works. It does not propose an innovative methodology and does not help in the decision-making process.
It is very valuable that you intend to introduce new and better functionalities in later versions, but this version is very simple and does not really represent an advance in knowledge. It leaves in the hands of the contractor the stage of identifying activities that will later be evaluated by a technician to determine whether they add value to the process without LG6 support. This is extremely negative for the value of the proposed new model. This is actually how is done at present.
This initial stage of your research is aimed at validating LG6. For this reason it would be strictly necessary to apply it to complex, varied and numerous cases that would allow the evaluation of strengths and weaknesses in order to refine the tool in later stages. Claiming that LG6 has not been applied to more cases has a negative influence on the validation of the tool.
The state of the art has been increased in volume, but not in significant content. The contribution of your proposal has not been discussed in relation to existing research in this field. It is mentioned that other works have used these three methodologies for similar purposes, however, you do not mention how they have done it, what results they obtained and their conclusions. This content should be the body of the state of the art over descriptive content.
The methodology continues without deepening the aspects mentioned in the first review. I quote again: “for example, some systematic process to collect activities needed in a construction project (huge problem in the planning phase), measure the performance of the resources consumed (materials, equipment and labour) and compare it with recognized standards, or based on what criteria the spreadsheet proposes alternatives to improve the performance of the process”. In addition, how the sigma level calculation applied to LG6 has not described in methodology, as recommended in the previous review.
The authors have taken into account some comments regarding the formal aspect of the text and recommendations on the inclusion of content, for example, they have changed the key words to more representative ones. However, errors still remain. The reference style is not applied correctly. In addition, there are numerous drafting errors when writing about a reference. For example, it is not correct to write “[7] discusses how…” or “…process level is [21]”. You still have many old references (prior to 2010). Some of the new ones are old again. This does not allow you to contextualize the current knowledge.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Issues have been addressed.
Author Response
See attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
