Sustainable Construction: Improving Productivity through Lean Construction
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting paper but it must be improved to achieve an acceptable level for Sustainability.
The research background must be revised and improved. There are some invalid references.
The method description is not sufficient to understand the novelty of the approach.
Results section is very poor and it must be improved in relation with the methodology.
English must be reviewed by a native speaker.
The final discussion could be extended in order to highlight the advantages and weaknesses of the approach by comparing with the scientific state of the art.
Author Response
Thank you for taking your time to analyze our manuscript. We have tried to improve our text making it more comprehensive for achieving a better sustainability level.
We have reviewed the references so all of them are valid ones.
Method, result and discussion has been reformulated to make sense.
Reviewer 2 Report
Journal: Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050)
Manuscript ID: Sustainability-1457823
Article Title: Sustainable Construction: Improving Productivity through Lean Construction
Review Report.
ABSTRACT:
i. The first sentence of the abstract need to be recast.
ii. The abstract was poorly written with disjointed sentences, the sentences need to be rewritten for consistency.
iii. The aim of the study was not included.
iv. The methodology of the research was not included.
v. The results obtained was not stated
vi. The authors should further highlight the conclusion and recommendation part of the article.
2. INTRODUCTION
i. The author’s style of writing should be improved and should avoid the use of first person pronoun as discovered on line 48.
ii. The claim on line 48, 49 and 50 about the impact mentioned should be further discussed.
iii. They are a lot of isolated paragraphs some of the paragraphs should be merged.
iv. The author should discuss the introduction section of the article more relating the relationship between the sustainable construction, productivity and lean construction.
v. The language used in line 72 should be recast, the whole sentence
B.MATERIAL AND METHODS
i. I find it difficult to understand the structure of the presentation under the methodology section, the authors need to rewrite this section for better readability.
ii. What type of design was used for this study?
iii. Do the author carried out any analysis or review to establish the issues discussed here?
iv. What are the lean parameters that were articulated for the purpose of the study.
v. What are the variables measured under sustainable construction?
vi. The text was poorly written in a way that made understanding of the concept difficult to understand.
vii. The authors presented the concepts as if the task being carried out under materials and methods is reviewing of literature making particular methods being refered to difficult to follow.
viii. What are the lean methods and variables identified and articulated?
ix. The authors should clearly state the variables articulated and outline the results that emerged therefrom.
x. The write up is full of syntax error, and errors in styles and forms.
C. RESULTS
i.The paragraphs in 598 to 604 should be re written.
ii.The authors should relate the results obtained to the variables presented under methods and highlight the outcome derived and validated with appropriate literature.
D. DISCUSSION
i.The discussion should be based on results obtained.
ii.The discussion should bring to the fore the results obtained on the workability of lean concepts identified and in relation to how it could improve productivity and create sustainable construction.
iii. The authors should clearly state the contribution of the study.
Author Response
Thank you for taking your time for reviewing our manuscript. We hope that we have been able to improve our text by changing the most important things of each part. We have tried to reorder our text in such a way that the suggested structure is fixed. We hope that our manuscript is now more comprehensible.
In the summary we have rephrased the first sentence and rewrote it to make the phrases consistent.
We have included: the objective of the study, the methodology of the research and the results obtained.
We have tried to highlight more the conclusions of the article.
In the introduction we have modified the writing style by avoiding the use of the first person pronoun.
We have tried to justify our assertions.
We have restructured the isolated paragraphs.
We have rewritten and tidied up the methodology to make it more understandable.
Current and older references on sustainable building, lean construction and process industrialisation were consulted for the study.
In addition, sustainable building regulations were consulted.
The lean parameters that were articulated for the purpose of the study focus mainly on waste saving and time optimisation, also on the organisation of tasks in parallel to avoid waiting times.
The variables measured within the framework of sustainable construction are also the reduction of unusable spaces in the layout programme, unnecessary materials and construction elements and the attempt to execute as much as possible off-site.
We have rewritten the results section and linked it to the methodology section.
Finally, we have rewritten the discussion section and separated the final conclusions into a separate section.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is very behind the basic requirements of a good paper, and it is not clear what the paper is saying!! There are many studies employing the concept of the Lean in the construction industry, but this research cannot add anything to the literature. It seems many sentences in this paper have been collected and merged to gather without any logic.
Author Response
Thank you for taking your time for reviewing our manuscript. We hope that we have been able to improve our text by changing the most important things of each part. We have tried to reorder our text in such a way that the suggested structure is fixed. We hope that our manuscript is now more comprehensible.
In the summary we have rephrased the first sentence and rewrote it to make the phrases consistent.
We have included: the objective of the study, the methodology of the research and the results obtained.
We have tried to highlight more the conclusions of the article.
In the introduction we have modified the writing style by avoiding the use of the first person pronoun.
We have tried to justify our assertions.
We have restructured the isolated paragraphs.
We have rewritten and tidied up the methodology to make it more understandable.
Current and older references on sustainable building, lean construction and process industrialisation were consulted for the study.
In addition, sustainable building regulations were consulted.
The lean parameters that were articulated for the purpose of the study focus mainly on waste saving and time optimisation, also on the organisation of tasks in parallel to avoid waiting times.
The variables measured within the framework of sustainable construction are also the reduction of unusable spaces in the layout programme, unnecessary materials and construction elements and the attempt to execute as much as possible off-site.
We have rewritten the results section and linked it to the methodology section.
Finally, we have rewritten the discussion section and separated the final conclusions into a separate section.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Despite the fact that the article has been improved and many parts have been modified based on the comments of the first review, I consider that results section can still be improved. The authors should relate the results obtained to the variables presented under methods, not only indicate what the results are but also why. A table or graph is missing to explain the results obtained.
There are also some spelling errors that should be checked.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review our article.
We have improved the results section, reorganising it based on the methodology used.
We have also added a summary table relating the methodology to the result obtained.
Some results were mistakenly in the methodology section and we have placed them in the right place.
We have corrected some syntax and spelling errors.
We have reviewed and corrected the references.
We hope that these changes will make the article more readable and understandable.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors did not implement most of the suggestions I made without rebuttal to the points. I think the authors implemented some other reviewers suggestions from their presentation. Authors suppose to take each reviewers comments and respond to them on point by point bases
Author Response
Reviewer 2:
The authors did not implement most of the suggestions I made without rebuttal to the points. I think the authors implemented some other reviewers suggestions from their presentation. Authors suppose to take each reviewers comments and respond to them on point by point bases
Thank you for your review, we regret that we did not respond to your first review in the appropriate manner. This time we have tried to answer all your reviews point by point. We have also included suggestions made by other reviewers.
ABSTRACT:
i. The first sentence of the abstract need to be recast.
i. In the abstract we have rephrased the first sentence.
ii. The abstract was poorly written with disjointed sentences, the sentences need to be rewritten for consistency.
ii. We have completely rewritten the abstract to make the phrases consistent.
iii. The aim of the study was not included.
iii. We have included the objective of the study.
iv. The methodology of the research was not included.
iv. We have included the methodology of the research.
v. The results obtained was not stated
v. We have included the results obtained.
vi. The authors should further highlight the conclusion and recommendation part of the article.
Vi. We have tried to highlight more the conclusions of the article.
2. INTRODUCTION
i. The author’s style of writing should be improved and should avoid the use of first person pronoun as discovered on line 48.
i. In the introduction we have modified the writing style by avoiding the use of the first person pronoun.
ii. The claim on line 48, 49 and 50 about the impact mentioned should be further discussed.
ii. We have rewritten lines 48, 49 and 50 and in this section we have only commented on them as an introduction. It is discussed further in the results.
iii. They are a lot of isolated paragraphs some of the paragraphs should be merged.
iii. We have restructured the isolated paragraphs.
iv. The author should discuss the introduction section of the article more relating the relationship between the sustainable construction, productivity and lean construction.
iv. We have tried to justify our assertions: talking about the lean concept, looking for ways to reduce waste, improving construction methods and production processes.
v. The language used in line 72 should be recast, the whole sentence.
v. The sentence in line 72 has been rewritten.
B.MATERIAL AND METHODS
i. I find it difficult to understand the structure of the presentation under the methodology section, the authors need to rewrite this section for better readability.
i. We have rewritten and tidied up the methodology to make it more understandable.
ii. What type of design was used for this study?
ii. The type of design used for this study was the application of lean manufacturing to construction processes. The approach to the production of the building is carried out, from these three phases: design, engineering and assembly.
iii. Do the author carried out any analysis or review to establish the issues discussed here?
iii. We carried out an analysis and review of current and older references on sustainable building, lean construction and process industrialisation for the study. In addition, sustainable building regulations were consulted.
iv. What are the lean parameters that were articulated for the purpose of the study.
iv. The lean parameters that were articulated for the purpose of the study focus mainly on waste saving and time optimisation, also on the organisation of tasks in parallel to avoid waiting times.
v. What are the variables measured under sustainable construction?
v. The variables that are measured within the framework of sustainable construction are also the reduction of unusable spaces in the programme, the saving of unnecessary materials and construction elements and the attempt to execute as much as possible off-site, the reduction of time and waiting times and the saving of auxiliary means.
vi. The text was poorly written in a way that made understanding of the concept difficult to understand.
vi. We have rewritten the text.
vii. The authors presented the concepts as if the task being carried out under materials and methods is reviewing of literature making particular methods being refered to difficult to follow.
vii. We have tried to restructure the methodology and results section by adding a summary table at the end of the results section.
The lean methodology used consists of analysing: the use of materials, the construction design, the design of the spatial distribution programme, the use of auxiliary means and resources and the application of lean tools in construction
viii. What are the lean methods and variables identified and articulated?
Viii. Combining the use of lean methodology in construction and BIM for integrated building management would be the best way to ensure sustainability in construction by achieving different SDGs goals: 9, 11 and 12.
We have tried to articulate the lean methods and variables
Just in Time and 5S method has been used. For this process, the lean methodology seeks the reduction of "waste", commonly seven: overproduction, waiting time, transport, excess procedures, inventory, movements, defects, and the non-contribution of the operator in obtaining ideas that can improve the processes.
ix. The authors should clearly state the variables articulated and outline the results that emerged therefrom.
ix. We have stated the variables articulated and outline the results that emerged therefrom making a table or diagram included with the results.
x. The write up is full of syntax error, and errors in styles and forms.
X. We have corrected style and syntax errors.
- RESULTS
i.The paragraphs in 598 to 604 should be re written.
i) We have rewritten the results section
ii. The authors should relate the results obtained to the variables presented under methods and highlight the outcome derived and validated with appropriate literature.
ii) We have linked it to the methodology section making a table.
DISCUSSION
i.The discussion should be based on results obtained.
i Finally, we have rewritten the discussion section and separated the final conclusions into a separate section.
The discussion is now more related to the results obtained.
ii.The discussion should bring to the fore the results obtained on the workability of lean concepts identified and in relation to how it could improve productivity and create sustainable construction.
Ii. The results obtained on lean concepts in relation to how it could improve productivity and create sustainable construction are discussed in the results and conclusions.
iii. The authors should clearly state the contribution of the study.
iii. We state the contribution of the study with a 3C System.
Finally, we have reviewed and corrected the references.
Reviewer 3 Report
As i stated before, this paper is like a classic report.
Author Response
Thank you for your review. We have changed the article as you can see in the change control based on corrections and suggestions made by other reviewers.
The changes we have made are as follows:
- We have completely rewritten the abstract to make the phrases consistent.
We have included in the abstract: the objective of the study, the methodology of the research, the results obtained and we have tried to highlight more the conclusions of the article. - In the introduction we have modified the writing style by avoiding the use of the first person pronoun, restructured the isolated paragraphs and tried to justify our assertions: talking about the lean concept, looking for ways to reduce waste, improving construction methods and production processes.
- We have rewritten and tidied up the methodology to make it more understandable.
The authors carried out an analysis and review of current and older references on sustainable building, lean construction and process industrialisation for the study. In addition, sustainable building regulations were consulted.
We have tried to restructure the methodology and results section by adding a summary table at the end of the results section. - The lean methodology used consists of analysing: the use of materials, the construction design, the design of the spatial distribution programme, the use of auxiliary means and resources and the application of lean tools in construction
We have tried to articulate the lean methods and variables. - We have stated the variables articulated and outline the results that emerged therefrom making a table or diagram included with the results.
- We have corrected style and syntax errors.
- We have rewritten the results section and we have linked it to the methodology section making a table.
- We have rewritten the discussion section and separated the final conclusions into a separate section. The discussion is now more related to the results obtained.
We state the contribution of the study with a 3C System. - Finally,we have reviewed and corrected the references
