Drivers of BIM-Based Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Buildings: An Interpretive Structural Modelling Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In general, the article touches on a very topical issue. The purpose of the study is clear, the research methods are described in detail. However, it is advisable to indicate not only the percentage of grappa experts, but their total number.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the comments. The total number of experts has been indicated in the article. This is indicated in line 254-259

Warm regards 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors decided to analyse the drivers of BIM based LCA sustainability assessment. This theme is of interest as it develops contemporary design approach and is a good support tool which should be further enhanced.

The reviewer does not question presented drivers - they were well chosen. Whar is questionable is the fact that the drivers present w variety of areas and have a diffrent "weight" where their importance is discussed. I.e. Organisation readiness should not be ppalced in line with i.e. Perceived ease of use. Possibly the authors after initial presentation of the drivesr should place alocate them to a variety of similar subjects/issues and alocate them dufferent weights. Therefore Stage 2 of the methodology should have been more developed. At least this issue could be discussed in the Conclusions section - pointing out that there is place for further development of the presented tool.

Also methodology presented in lines 230-248 appears to be weak - as the theme is based on meeeting three researchers with post-PhD experience in BIM-based LCSA studies - who in fact should be mentioned by name. Also sampling on 20 professionals only, and 14 responces - hardly can add to a comprehensive solution.  Whereas the analysis itself is interesting - the approach is not robust, and the weak elements should at least be mentioned in the Conclusion section

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for the comments.

The revisions have been integrated into the article. We have added to the discussion on the drivers' placement and indicated a place for further development of the presented tool. This is mentioned in lines 435 to 438.

For the researchers with post-PhD experience, we decided not to mention their names for ethical reasons. The respondents were also assured that no personal details would be revealed in the study.

However, we have improved this section by appropriately supporting the section with similar studies and highlighting a section to discuss the limitations the sample size holds on the study. This is seen in lines 498-536.

Warm regards

Reviewer 3 Report

1-     The abstract should include the main results and conclusions. List the main ones by name.

-

2-      The introduction is not focused. It did not specify the research questions to be addressed by the study, or research objectives of the study.

3-     The introduction is supposed to give readers an idea of the paper's purpose. However, the introduction in its current form is difficult to follow and understand. It needs to be rewritten.

4-      Objectives should be clearly stated at the end of introduction or after the introduction section.

5-     At the end of the introduction, it is important for adding the significant of this study.

6-     In the introduction section, the research question should be added to represent the philosophy of the research.

7

1

1-  The conceptual model part is the core of the study , you need to enhance this part by adding the study theory instead of just writing. Keep in your mind that this part is the heart of this study and the novelty of this study will be generated from this part. So, justification for research significance should be added.

1

1-  The implication of the research is not clear.

1-  Can you add a section in the discussion of how this study benefit the industry practitioners? You explain in detail how the industry might use your work. Or a framework of implementation. You might show an illustrative example or a case study in a construction project.

1-  What is the theoretical contribution for this study?

-- What is the sample size ? what is the sample strategy ?

-- The adopting of MICMAC against other methods like SEM should be justified

-

However ,I suggest arranging the paper as follows:

·        Abstract

·        Introduction including brief of research gaps , and objectives.

·        Literature review

·        Methodology

·        Data collection and case study

·        Results implementation and analysis

·        Practical implications

·        Theoretical implications

·        Conclusions

·        References

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the comments.

The abstract has been improved to include the results and conclusions, as seen in lines 17 to 23.

The significance of the study and objectives have been incorporated into the introduction, as seen in lines 44-55.

The implications have been sectioned, outlined and discussed in lines 498-527.

The sample size, sample strategy, and justification for MICMAC have been outlined in lines 254-269.

Warm regards

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I have read the responces, and  recognise the fact that the authors have tried to improve the contents of presented paper. Nevertheless I do not believe that a  sampling on 20 professionals only, and with 14 responces - is a comprehensive solution. It cannot be accepted as a statistical approach, as the sample is far too small and the outcomes can very easily prove to be false. Therefore my advise is that the authors should worl more on the methodology and submit this papeer at  later date, as the worth of the research can be easily recognised.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the comment.

We have improved the methodology section as suggested. We stated that the limited sample is not unusual in the ISM methodology because the approach prioritises experts with knowledge and experience in examining complex scenarios and breaking them into multiple subsystems (Line 196-208). Given that experts, especially in emerging technologies, are few, the small sample size has been justified in previous studies, as indicated in lines 205-222

Also, the technical nature of the ISM survey makes its application preferred in a small group discussion with experts. Hence, previous studies have based samples on 5, 7, 10, 11, 13 experts etc. (Line 276-296). There is, therefore, no set standard for the number of experts to be employed.

However, to ensure scientific rigour, several steps were adopted, which include (Line 254-263):

• Comprehensive literature review to ensure all variables are well identified
• Experts with more than 10 years of experience were identified
• Experts' experience using BIM in LCSA was a major deciding factor in selecting participants. Hence the snowball approach was adopted.
• Experts' demographics were spread to ensure they covered the Academia, project stakeholders and BIM software design institutions.
• Participants were confirmed to have a wealth of expertise working in the public and private sectors.
• The feedback of the majority of the participants was used in deciding the variables in the initial reachability matrix.
• The framework presented was critiqued in line with other frameworks presented in similar studies.

The approach's weaknesses were also well stated in the "Limitations" section of the study (Line 559-566).

We kindly hope you find this in order.

Thank you for your comments once again

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper can be published on the current form 

Author Response

Thank you!

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have included a number of answers to my questions. Even if I am not totally satisfied, I believe the paper is much better now and could be published