Analyzing Cost and Schedule Growths of Road Construction Projects, Considering Project Characteristics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript ID: sustainability-1395282

Title: Analyzing Cost and Schedule Growths of Road Construction Projects Considering Project Characteristics

Authors: Kang-Wook Lee *, Kyong-Hoon Kim

Type: Article

General Comments:

1. Overall, this study analyses a promising field where scientific contributions can be achieved. The article’s technical part seems to be encouraging. Nevertheless, major revisions are necessary for an academic publication, as the article’s write-up and the academic contribution present low quality. This research lacks academic rigorousness. It may be a good fit for a bachelor thesis but not for a journal paper. The writing style of the paper also needs to become better, meaning sections and paragraphs should be more connected with each other (rather than being abrupt as seen in many places). More Figures and Tables are also needed.
2. The authors must furtherly explain their academic contribution to the body of knowledge. It seems that the novelty of this study is very low. The methodology followed also indicates low level of analysis. I would like to see a supplementary text from their behalf explaining this to me and the editor. Theoretical and practical implications must be integrated into the Discussion section.

 

Title:

The title seems to be on point.  

 

Abstract:

1. The abstract should contain at least the research topic, the aim, research questions, methods, results, data analysis, and conclusions. It is advisable to also include possible implications of your research and future work you see connected with your findings. Some of these elements already exist in your abstract but they seem to be unclear to readers that do not possess the proper academic background. The authors are advised to rewrite the abstract including all these elements. Clearly state each one (ex. The aim of this study is…, etc.)
2. Lines 15-17: How is sustainable project management practices related to final and planned performance? Same for providing feedback to future similar projects. Which dimension of sustainability is covered by these attributes? The term sustainable project management needs to furtherly be explained. It feels that the term “sustainable” should be removed in this point.
3. There is nowhere to be found that the study is based on the Korean road infrastructure system.
4. Clearly state who are the recipients of your findings, and the way they benefit from reading your manuscript.

 

Introduction:

1. Line 31: Blood vessels needs to be put in quotation marks (“”).
2. Line 33: Six references for a sentence seem undue. Please use maximum 3 (the most relative ones).
3. Lines 41 – 48: The authors successfully provide the background to defend their statement that Korea continues discussions on road infrastructure investments (even though some of the given references are outdated, ex. Reference 9 is from 2009). How is this information valuable to the aim of the study that is to analyze the cost and schedule growth of road construction projects to provide a quantitative reference for sustainable construction? It seems unnecessary here.
4. Line 63: The term sustainable construction and sustainability need to be furtherly explained in relation to the aim of the study. Not even one reference addressed to sustainability issues can be found in the reference list. Is even sustainable project management part of the paper’s theme? Maybe the authors should erase it all over the text.
5. While the authors seem to introduce their topic, to create some context and background, and to state their rationale; they seem to lack in explaining why their research is important and what is their hypothesis.
6. Overall the introduction section is too short, without providing the necessary background for the analyzed theme. I would suggest a deeper review including all key terms (such as the factors mentioned in lines 51-55).

 

Research background:

1. The first paragraph of section 2.1. lacks references.
2. In section 2.1. the authors briefly describe the situation of construction management systems in Korea and Japan. What is the case in other countries? How is Korea and Japan related to the aim of the study? Are these two countries part of the case study that will follow? If so the aim must change accordingly.
3. Line 119 lacks reference.
4. Line 122: …. construction industry. Lacks reference.
5. Last paragraph of section 2.2 lacks references.
6. Lines 150-156: The authors describe part of the analysis of this study. This paragraph has no place in the research background section. Please move to Methodology or conclusion.
7. Line 153: …. relatively large sample dataset. Please define what the authors think of “large” by using the relative references and criteria.
8. The authors should focus more on previous researches of the analyzed theme
9. The literature review is generally in the format of a standard essay made up of three components: an introduction, a body and a conclusion. I advise the authors to follow this pattern.

Methodology:

1. Line 166: The aim is written differently than in line 62. Please be consistent everywhere in the text.
2. Line 170-172: How is this information helpful for the metrological approach of the study? Please be more clear on why we need this detail or remove it.
3. Section 3.1. lacks a figure that will showcase the research process/methodological approach of the study.
4. The authors need to explain the characteristics of Table 1 in the text. For example, what are contract type projects? Are they not construction projects? Are facility types road construction projects? This study aims to analyze the cost and schedule growth of road construction projects by considering project characteristics. All these terms must be crystal clear to the reader.
5. Table 1 seems confusing. Why some types have two elements and some three?
6. Section 3.4 lacks references.
7. Line 216: Please say a few words about Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests. What are these tests about?
8. Line 217: … 28 sample groups … what 28 sample groups? This is the first time we see that. Have the authors divided the projects in groups? In what manner or pattern? Was there a systematic method for this division? Please elaborate in the text.
9. Line 218: What is the significance of 0,05? How did this number occur? Was there a software used? Does it have any metrics? It seems like a random number to the reader.
10. All referred tests must be explained in section 3.4.
11. Table 2 and 3: What is S.D.? Standard deviation? There is nowhere to be found in the text.
12. The rest of the sub-sections of chapter 4 are consistent and easily understandable. I would advise the authors to follow the same pattern for the whole chapter.

 

A discussion section should be included

 

Conclusions:

1. Synopsis of the aim is missing
2. Contributions to the overall body of knowledge are missing
3. Other than these this section is well structured.
4. I also advise to rename the paragraph as Conclusion and recommendations.

 

Author Response

The authors greatly appreciate the valuable comments and constructive suggestions made by the reviewer. Please note that in responding to the requests and concerns of the reviewer, we have made considerable revisions to the second submission of this paper. Changes and additions in response to the specific comments are outlined in the attached file. We hope the changes we describe below have made the manuscript suitable for publication, and we look forward to your positive response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 
Thank you for this informative research paper, it was interesting learning about the Korean construction industry. 
The paper flaws smoothly and it was easy to understand.  
I believe that the results of this research are beneficial and can be used by other researchers for future research. 
While this research and the empirical results’ focus is on performance results (cost and schedule growth differences), and not on the causes of the performance differences, it would be beneficial to mention some of the general/common causes in the discussion section. Currently, the discussion section is about the statistical findings and comparison with the literature, with no minimum discussion about possible factors and causes for the performance differences, which can be common factors related to political, social, economic...etc reasons that would be of the interest of the readers to learn about them. 
I would like to recommend adding some discussion for the possible causes attribute to the empirical results of the project cost and schedule growth differences. 
Regards

Author Response

The authors greatly appreciate the valuable comments and constructive suggestions made by the reviewer. Please note that in responding to the requests and concerns of the reviewer, we have made considerable revisions to the second submission of this paper. Changes and additions in response to the specific comments are outlined in the attached file. We hope the changes we describe below have made the manuscript suitable for publication, and we look forward to your positive response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper entitled “Analyzing Cost and Schedule Growths of Road Construction Projects Considering Project Characteristics” falls into the scope of the Sustainability journal. Below, I provide a short analysis and evaluation of its particular sections.

Title. The title of the paper is short and concise, in general reflecting the content and the aim of the study.

Abstract. The abstract is well-structured since its components has a logical structure. However, authors might consider adding the future work agenda at the end of it.

Introduction. This section is also well-written, giving the gentle introduction of the research problem, followed by the brief description of the methodology and the summary of the results obtained.

Research Background. This section is the only weakness of the paper. First and foremost, the discussion on the related work is missing, and should be comprehensively addressed by the authors. In this line of thinking, please add the Discussion section in which the authors should juxtapose the results obtained from the current study with those identified through literature review and analysis. Please take a look at such well-known and high quality journals like:

• Project Management Journal (SAGE),
• Project Management Journal (PMI),
• International Journal of Project Management.

You can also review the papers published in the Special Issue "Project Management and Sustainable Development" (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/special_issues/Project_Management).

I expect from the revisited version of your manuscript an interesting discussion that will exhibit a relevant analysis of the state-of-the-art research in the area of project management in the context of the road construction topic.  

Considering other sections, I have no other issues to put forward.

Last but not least, I would like to express my gratitude to have an opportunity to review this paper since I found it very interesting and valuable.

Author Response

The authors greatly appreciate the valuable comments and constructive suggestions made by the reviewer. Please note that in responding to the requests and concerns of the reviewer, we have made considerable revisions to the second submission of this paper. Changes and additions in response to the specific comments are outlined in the attached file. We hope the changes we describe below have made the manuscript suitable for publication, and we look forward to your positive response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript ID: sustainability-1395282

Title: Analyzing Cost and Schedule Growths of Road Construction Projects Considering Project Characteristics

Authors: Kang-Wook Lee *, Kyong-Hoon Kim

Type: Article

General Comments:

Overall I appreciate the efforts that the authors have done to address my previous comments. As you will see below in the new comments, I strongly disagree with the way the authors use the term “sustainable project management”. One last step to agree for publication is to implement the following comments.

 

Keywords: Sustainable infrastructure management is totally irrelevant with the theme analyzed

 

Discussion:

1. Line 400: The idea of creating Table 16 is very good. Well done to the authors for that. However, such a Table has no place in the Discussion Section. It must be placed to the literature review section. Furthermore, I see only 4 references in this Table. The contribution is very low. I would be pleased to see at least ten or fifteen relative references, so that such a Table be considered as contributing to the research. Even better to analyze the systematic search process for retrieving the papers analyzed in the Table.
2. The reason behind the creation of a discussion section is to discuss the research findings. In this case, the authors seem to discuss previous literature instead. I am pleased with the creation of this text but for the literature review part of the paper. A new discussion section must be created.
3. Line 446: “….to support sustainable project management.” The literature analysis provided has nothing to do with sustainable project management or even sustainability. The authors must stop using the term so lightly, especially when it’s irrelevant to the theme analyzed.

 

Abstract:

1. Well done for the aim and methodology part.
2. Clearly indicate that there is only one research question: “How much do the project characteristics matter for road projects?”. I advise the authors to use more research questions as only one usually can be found in low quality papers.
3. Line 33: Please remove “our following studies will attempt” and replace with future research
4. I see no implications connected with the findings
5. Lines 15-17: The response of the authors is nowhere to be found in the text. Contributing to economic sustainability does not mean that the practices suggested are relevant to sustainable project management practices. I am still against using this term without proper justification connected to the findings. Even the term sustainable infrastructure management is misleading. Sustainability derives only though implementing all 3 attributes of the triple-bottom line scenario. The authors can just refer that the practices suggested are contributing towards the economic part of the sustainability philosophy. Please correct everywhere in the text.
6. Line 30: Well done

 

Introduction:

1. Line 39: Well done
2. Line 63: Well done to the authors for their response and for the new text. “the target of this study primarily contributes to economic sustainability”, this is what I want to receive as feedback from all the text and not “sustainable project management”, etc. as mentioned in previous comment. However, I suggest that their above-mentioned response should be integrated in the text, too (The intention of the paragraph….).

 

Research background:

1. “The first paragraph of section 2.1. lacks references.”: I see no added references there.
2. Well done for the added references in the rest of the text.
3. Line 144: I am satisfied with the supplementary text. Please add also the explanation given: “Section 2.1 introduces an example of representative….”
4. Line 178: It makes more sense now to the reader. Well done.

Methodology:

1. Line 18, 70, 196: Well done.
2. Line 202-204: Agreed.
3. Figure 1: Well done.
4. Line 220: I am happy with the supplementary text; it is indeed clearer to the reader.
5. Table 1 seems confusing. Why some types have two elements and some three?
6. Section 3.4 lacks references.
7. Line 267, 271, 279, 305: Well done.

 

Discussion:

1. Seems more like a literature review analysis rather than a discussion section. The discussion should have been focused in the results of the paper and not to describe previous studies on the analyzed theme. I would advise the authors to reform this section accordingly. This suggestion comes as my advice to rise the overall quality of the paper. If the authors decline this revision, I will not suggest against the publication of the paper. However, I would like to read their explanation for the decline if it happens instead.

 

Conclusions:

1. Well done for all the changes, however I see no synopsis of the aim.

 

Author Response

The authors greatly appreciate the valuable comments and constructive suggestions made by the reviewer. Please note that in responding to the requests and concerns of the reviewer, we have made considerable revisions to the third submission of this paper. Changes and additions in response to the specific comments are outlined in the attached file. We hope the changes we describe below have made the manuscript suitable for publication, and we look forward to your positive response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for addressing all the issues, indicated in the former review.

In my opinion, your paper is now ready for publication.

Author Response

The authors greatly appreciate the valuable comments and constructive suggestions made by the reviewer. Thank you very much.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the efforts that the authors have done to address my comments. I can now agree for publication.