Gemini Principles-Based Digital Twin Maturity Model for Asset Management
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors,
thank you for your care and professionalism in the paper presented.
A useful model has ensued and your methods set the standard for those developing maturity models in similar, but different, contexts.
Given your demonstrated high standards you might address the following:
- Ln 18 'totally' is unnecessary. delete.
- Ln 105 in the Table 'sate' appears to be a spelling error.
- Ln 121 Should not the source be acknowledged in the title or as a footnote.
- Ln 169 change to 'Principles are'.
- Ln 299 the table does not make clear the conection between project 1 (or 2) and the names i.e. Shanghai or Cambridge.
May you go forth and do further good work.
Author Response
A useful model has ensued and your methods set the standard for those developing maturity models in similar, but different, contexts.
Response: Thanks for the reviewer's encouraging suggestions. Please check the following response in detail.
Given your demonstrated high standards you might address the following:
- Ln 18 'totally' is unnecessary. delete.
- Ln 105 in the Table 'sate' appears to be a spelling error.
- Ln 121 Should not the source be acknowledged in the title or as a footnote.
- Ln 169 change to 'Principles are'.
- Ln 299 the table does not make clear the conection between project 1 (or 2) and the names i.e. Shanghai or Cambridge.
Response: We have changes all grammar errors based on the suggestions. And We added project 1 and 2 in the main contents and Table 6.
Reviewer 2 Report
Table 1. should be together on a single page
Suggested citation for [53] (2019). Developing a dynamic digital twin at a building level: Using Cambridge campus as case study. International Conference on Smart Infrastructure and Construction 2019, ICSIC 2019: Driving Data-Informed Decision-Making, 67-75. https://doi.org/10.1680/icsic.64669.067 - please check all
Table 2. The Gemini Principles and statements: single letters in cells
The number of responders (40) limited, but accettable for the purpose.
Cells in table Table 4. should be centered
Project numbers (1/2) not identified in chapter 5. Would be better eliminating the project 1/2 reference, only using names.
The maturity assssment of both porject are based on a single intervew. For further research an expert pool would be better.
Author Response
Table 1. should be together on a single page
Response: The table 1 has been removed to a single page.
Suggested citation for [53] (2019). Developing a dynamic digital twin at a building level: Using Cambridge campus as case study. International Conference on Smart Infrastructure and Construction 2019, ICSIC 2019: Driving Data-Informed Decision-Making, 67-75. https://doi.org/10.1680/icsic.64669.067 - please check all
Response: Thanks for this comment. The reference has been changed as suggested.
Table 2. The Gemini Principles and statements: single letters in cells; The number of responders (40) limited, but acceptable for the purpose.
Response: Thanks for mentioning this. Table 2 has been revised as suggested.
Cells in table Table 4. should be centered
Response: Thanks for mentioning this. Table 4 has been revised as suggested.
Project numbers (1/2) not identified in chapter 5. Would be better eliminating the project 1/2 reference, only using names.
Response: Thanks for mentioning this. Project 1 and 2 were added in the content and also in the Table 6.
The maturity assssment of both porject are based on a single intervew. For further research an expert pool would be better.
Response: Thanks for mentioning this. We added 'an expert pool' as the future works in the conclusion.
