Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, this is a clearly structured and written paper based on formal research. The conceptual development was based on an existing framework dated back to 2010; and it was incorporated with interview results from two different case studies to produce the final result. This reviewer invites the author to more comprehensively and critically interpret and evaluate the results through the discussion and conclusion sections, in order to more properly validate and contextualise the findings for the broader field.

Author Response

Overall, this is a clearly structured and written paper based on formal research. The conceptual development was based on an existing framework dated back to 2010; and it was incorporated with interview results from two different case studies to produce the final result. This reviewer invites the author to more comprehensively and critically interpret and evaluate the results through the discussion and conclusion sections, in order to more properly validate and contextualise the findings for the broader field.

 

Thank you for your time and comments. We addressed your comments in different aspects of the manuscript.

Firstly, we observed that Participatory processes can have different levels of engagement between stakeholders, ranging from consultative approaches to the co-design process. Thus, explored the co-design literature to enrich our framework in lines 536-539.

 

Secondly, we agreed that the characterization of the problem and the discussions could explore the distinctions of this type of project, as well as the extent to which the proposed strategies can be extrapolated to other types of refurbishment projects. In lines 644-650, we justified this with the broader scope of the application of the RIBA plan of work that we used for developing the framework in Figure 7.

Thirdly, In lines 654-659, we emphasised on the gap filled in our research.

Reviewer 2 Report

In current study (buildings-1733920), the authors obtained and analyzed interview data that entitled: End-user stakeholder engagement in the refurbishment design in higher education.

It’s well-constructed in procuring and extending of recreation. The paper can be considered for publication without any comments.

 

-          Abstract: well-constructed with focusing in each parts background of study, problem, research aim, methodology, results, and conclusion.

-          Introduction: excellent background of study with certain references and appendix

-          Method: admirable explanation

-          Results: great discussion

-          Conclusion: perfect achievement in explanation of target results

Author Response

REVIEWER

In current study (buildings-1733920), the authors obtained and analyzed interview data that entitled: End-user stakeholder engagement in the refurbishment design in higher education.

It’s well-constructed in procuring and extending of recreation. The paper can be considered for publication without any comments.

 

-          Abstract: well-constructed with focusing in each parts background of study, problem, research aim, methodology, results, and conclusion.

-          Introduction: excellent background of study with certain references and appendix

-          Method: admirable explanation

-          Results: great discussion

-          Conclusion: perfect achievement in explanation of target results

 

RESPONSE: Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper "End-user stakeholder engagement in the refurbishment design in higher education" is well structured, with clear and coherent objectives, research methods, analysis, and conclusions.

Although adequate and very well carried out, the literature review can benefit from a discussion on participatory and co-design processes.

As the 2007 and 2013 versions of the RIBA "Plan of Work" were cited, it is suggested that the most recent version (2020) is also considered in the review.

The paper presents two case studies conducted through semi-structured interviews using the Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM) approach. 

As a result of the research, six strategies for End-user stakeholder engagement in the design process are presented.

The strategies were coherently constructed from the cases and interviews, in association with the literature. This is a relevant contribution to a relatively little discussed topic.

Perhaps, some points of the research could be deepened or better described in the paper.

The paper's central focus is the participation of End-users in the refurbishment design process. Participatory processes can have different levels of engagement between stakeholders, ranging from consultative approaches to the co-design process. Thus, it is suggested to explore the co-design literature and discuss possible levels of End-user participation in design processes.

End-user stakeholder engagement is a valid issue for any refurbishment design. The cases justify the focus of the research on buildings for higher education but the characterization of the problem and the discussions could explore the distinctions of this type of project, as well as the extent to which the proposed strategies can be extrapolated to other types of refurbishment projects. 

The conclusions resume the main points developed in the paper and are coherent but could be more emphatic about the scholarship contributions. 

Author Response

 Reviewer: Overall, this is a clearly structured and written paper based on formal research. The conceptual development was based on an existing framework dated back to 2010; and it was incorporated with interview results from two different case studies to produce the final result. This reviewer invites the author to more comprehensively and critically interpret and evaluate the results through the discussion and conclusion sections, in order to more properly validate and contextualise the findings for the broader field.

Response: Thank you for your time and comments. We have addressed them as explained below

 

Reviewer: The paper "End-user stakeholder engagement in the refurbishment design in higher education" is well structured, with clear and coherent objectives, research methods, analysis, and conclusions. Although adequate and very well carried out, the literature review can benefit from a discussion on participatory and co-design processes.

Response: Thank you for this comment. You expanded on it in your subsequent comments. And we have revised the manuscript in line with them as stated below

 

Reviewer: As the 2007 and 2013 versions of the RIBA "Plan of Work" were cited, it is suggested that the most recent version (2020) is also considered in the review.

Response: Thank you for this observation. We have added the RIBA plan of work 2020 to our explanations and citations. The are tracked in text.

Reviewer: The paper presents two case studies conducted through semi-structured interviews using the Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM) approach. As a result of the research, six strategies for End-user stakeholder engagement in the design process are presented. The strategies were coherently constructed from the cases and interviews, in association with the literature. This is a relevant contribution to a relatively little discussed topic. Perhaps, some points of the research could be deepened or better described in the paper.The paper's central focus is the participation of End-users in the refurbishment design process. Participatory processes can have different levels of engagement between stakeholders, ranging from consultative approaches to the co-design process. Thus, it is suggested to explore the co-design literature and discuss possible levels of End-user participation in design processes.

Response: Thank you for this comment. In lines 73-76, we stated the two objectives of our study as follows: To determine the specific phases of end-user engagement in refurbishment de-sign process of building facilities in higher institutions and to identify specific end-user engagement strategies adopted in higher education refurbishment projects. Following the data collection, we were able structure the strategies into different phases of higher education refurbishment projects and presented in the Figure 7 framework. However, we related our framework to co-designing principles and specified the codesign dimensions fitting it in lines 536-539

Reviewer: End-user stakeholder engagement is a valid issue for any refurbishment design. The cases justify the focus of the research on buildings for higher education but the characterization of the problem and the discussions could explore the distinctions of this type of project, as well as the extent to which the proposed strategies can be extrapolated to other types of refurbishment projects. 

Response: Thank you for this comment. In lines 265-295, we showed the data collection from professionals involved in refurbishment building projects in higher education institutions in Australia and New Zealand. To a great extent, this narrowed the scope of our findings to refurbishment building projects. However, we agreed with the merit that there is scope for applying our findings to other types of refurbishment projects. In lines 644-650, we justified this with the broader scope of the application of the RIBA plan of work that we used for developing the framework in Figure 7.

Reviewer: The conclusions resume the main points developed in the paper and are coherent but could be more emphatic about the scholarship contributions. 

Response: Thank you for this comment. In lines 654-659, we emphasised on the gap filled in our research.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am satisfied with the revisions.