Assessment of Construction Competitiveness through Knowledge Management Process Implementation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

I'm glad to see that the content of the article has been revised quite completely. However, there are still some issues to be raised for suggestions.

1. About Section 2.3 Conceptual model of KMP and CC factors, on pages 11-13, lines 441-541. In this paragraph, The reviewer believes that although the verification is done through the recursive mode of SEM, the hypothesis should be explained in a one-way manner. According to the content of the references on which the hypothesis is based, the original authors should all indicate that variable A has a positive or negative impact on variable B. In addition, Figure 4. The best-fit structural model is presented at the end of this study. Isn’t it just a one-way influence that will give the final result? It is recommended that the author consider or refer to relevant literature. If there is any direction to modify the architecture diagram, please also modify the direction of the content and the description of the assumptions.

2. About Section 2.2 Construction competitiveness in the construction industry, on pages 9-11, lines 3-440. In this paragraph, The reviewer found that there are only five cc items here, such as PF, CS, LP, IN, TM, and QL. And on pages 14-15, lines 575-582, it says "They suggest two adjustments on KMP and CC factors, including the use of the "lesson learned" term in the "KS5" item instead of the "codified human knowledge" term, and adding employee satisfaction (ES) as an associated item of the CC factor. These are consistent with Duodu and Rowlinson [69] that employee satisfaction is related to the company's intellectual capital, which fits with the knowledge production

function. After the adjustments, the final version of the questionnaire survey is achieved with  28 items for KMP factors and seven items for the CC factor. "  However, in Table 4. The mean and standard deviation values ​​on page 17, the value of the PF item are missing. Please confirm whether to write less. Because there is this PF item value in Table 5. EFA and reliability analysis results. It is recommended that the author reconfirm the relevant data content.

3. About Section 4.2 EFA results, on pages 18-20, lines 685-717.

Q1: Regarding each factor item in Table 5. EFA and reliability analysis results., many of its factor extracted values ​​have values ​​below 0.5, and there may be a difference of less than 0.3 with other factor item values. It is recommended that the author consider whether there is an error in the rotation method or data filling.

Q2: Regarding the presentation of Table 6. Pearson’s correlation coefficient, it is recommended to keep only the content in the lower left corner of the diagonal line, and the content in the upper right corner can be deleted to make it easier to view the data.

4. About Section 6. Self-Assessment Form of CC through KMP Implementation, on pages 25-22, lines 876-943. In this paragraph, The author has made relevant descriptions and supplements for this content. Because this method is proposed by the author for reference only. Therefore, the reviewer suggested that in the final research limitations, a note should be made to indicate that if there is relevant research in the future, this method can be improved or verified (for example, through the Analytic Hierarchy Process, AHP, or other methods).

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for solid comments. Please see attached for the responses to the comments.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

This version is much better than previsous one.

HOWEVER, the model fit indicators were not very good , and they should be refined, i.e. GFI ,CFI >0.9

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for solid comments. Please see attached for the responses to the comments.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Assessment of construction competitiveness through knowledge management process implementation

In this manuscript, this study utilizes the structural equation modeling (SEM) approach to explore the interrelationships between key KMP factors and their influences on the CC. The self-assessment form developed from study results assists the construction companies to assess their KMP implementation and plan for the sustainable development.

The paper contains abundant data, pictures, tables and other information. The experimental process is rigorous and logical, and the conclusions are persuasive.

To sum up, considering the whole quality of this manuscript and the standard of this journal, I suggest that it can be accepted now.

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for solid comments provided for this manuscript.

Best regards

Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 5)

As I wrote in detail in my first review, the article is well designed. It is acceptable as it is.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for solid comments provided for this manuscript.

Best regards

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. It is suggested that "structural equation modeling" be removed from the title and no special emphasis should be placed on the method.

2. It is recommended that the author add a description of the research object to the abstract so that readers can have a more general understanding of the implementation method of this research. In addition, it is also recommended that the management focus brought by the research results be appropriately emphasized at the end. Please modify and adjust according to the following related issues, and then rewrite the relevant content of this section.

3. About Section 2.1 KMP factors in the construction industry and Section 2.2 KMP factors in the construction industry. The titles of both sections are the same. Please confirm whether one of them is written incorrectly. If so, please correct it.

4. About Table 1. Summary of five factors with 28 associated items. The first items in each paragraph in the table, such as KR, KA, KS, KU, and KD, should be the five main factors of this study. It is recommended that this factor be bolded and underlined or a column is added before ITEM as a construct so that we can know more clearly what items are included in this factor.

It is also suggested that the abbreviation code of each item can be changed to be presented in a numbered manner. For example: RCLN under construct KR is changed to KR1, RMKC is changed to KR2, RCLT is changed to KR3... etc. are presented in order, which will be more concise and clear when reading.

5. It is recommended that the order of Table 1 and subsequent subtitles be combined with each other, and the description content after the subtitles can be presented according to the order of Table 1. If the first factor in Table 1 is KR, it should be 2.2.1. Knowledge Responsiveness (KR). Adjustments can increase readability.

6. About Section 3.2. Research design, on pages 10-11, lines 323-363. In this paragraph, The reviewer suggested that the relevant research hypotheses should be deduced first in this paragraph. In other words, please explain in more detail the basis for deriving each hypothesis with reference to those relevant studies. What are the relevant documents cited? There shouldn't be a single study to support this idea.

And the hypothesis is directional, please clearly indicate who affects whom according to the hypothesis established by the reference.

Finally, it is recommended that a conceptual model be compiled after all hypothesis inferences are completed and marked in the figure according to the directionality of the hypotheses.

7. It is recommended to add a common method variation analysis to Section 3.3(on page 12) to explain whether there are CMV problems in self-report scales. Or the methods taken to avoid it.

8. About Section 4.1. Data collection and data screening results, on pages 13-14, lines 446-468. The text description in this paragraph only needs to briefly describe the questionnaire processing situation. It is recommended that the relevant content of Table 1 does not need to be presented.

9. About Table 5. EFA and reliability analysis results. The abbreviation in the item can be presented more concisely by using the factor abbreviation plus serial number as mentioned above. In this table, for example, AFRS is changed to KA4, DHCS is changed to KD5, AEMK is changed to KA2... etc.

The reviewer found that DHCS is not a KA factor in this table, and APPE is not a KR factor. Please explain why these two items are not part of the original factors. And suggest fixing some problems. This problem will affect subsequent analysis results. There are problems with the content presented in Figures 3 and 4.

10. It is recommended to add a subtitle and content before Section 4.2 SEM results to show the scale reliability and validity analysis results of this study and to add descriptive statistics and correlations. Suggestions can be presented and explained in a table format. The table may contain the following information: the Matrix of means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients of latent constructs.

In addition, the new correction path is mentioned in the content of 4.3.1 Measurement Model Results and Figure 3. This is the measurement model. Its correlation is mentioned. Whether adjustments and corrections should be made according to the indicators, especially the SKHC and SKHC under the KS factor. The correlation problem of DHCS under the KA factor, they each belong to different factors. Please try to find a way to fix the problem.

11. About Section 4.3.2 Structural Model Results and 5. Discussion of Results, on pages 18-21. In these paragraphs, it is impossible to compare the assumed directionality of the conceptual model architecture in Figure 2 at the beginning. And this research has always emphasized the optimal model. I would like to ask if compared with the original hypothesis model, the focus is on whether the original assumptions are true. There are absolutely no results visible in this content. If necessary, should a competitive model be used to present and compare the results under different model architectures, and compare and explain the different results?

Based on the contents of Figure 4 and Figure 5, please explain whether the model adopts a recursive or non-recursive mode, and what are the relevant qualifying conditions? This leads to the final output of Figure 4 and Figure 5.

12. About Section 6. Self-Assessment Form of CC through KMP Implementation, on pages 21-22, lines 625-690. In this paragraph, This step is very important. The reviewer is aware of the scale and implementation method developed in this study but would like to ask whether the relevant score definition, implementation, and calculation content in this process are based on the methods, processes, or related definitions proposed by those related studies. Or is it just the way researchers try to implement it?

13. About Section 7. Implications for the Construction Industry and 8. Conclusion and Recommendation, on pages 23-25, lines 691-791. In these paragraphs, It can be seen that the author has carefully discussed and improved the practical problems encountered in the relevant construction industry. However, it is recommended that subsequent modifications need to be made based on the above-mentioned issues.

Finally, it is suggested that the author should think about the reconstruction of the larger structure and content of this study so that this study can highlight its important discoveries and contributions. Especially the resolution of the important issues mentioned above.

 Minor editing of English language required

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript aims to study the relationship between KMP and CC, which is interest. But there are some problems in the methodology as follows: 

1.the aim of the study is to explore the effects of KMP factors on CC, so there should be five one-headed arrows from all of the five factor towords CC and loading values shoule be reported, even it may be very low.

2.the five factors of KMP:KA, KD, KR, KS, and KU should be corelated with each other, so theratically there shoule be five connection lines(two-headed arrows ) among them. But in the fig.3, several factors were not connected by two-headed arrows, which shoule be explained by the authors.

3. Cronbach's Alpha is a index for reliability rather than validity, and the structural validity shoule be tested by SEM. 

4. why the loading value in the EFA are very low, even lower than 0.4, but in the CFA, they turned to be higher i.e. 0.6.

5. The fitness index of GFI CFI should be greater than 0.9. rather than 0.7 or 0.8.

6. The factors of KMP and CC were sourced from the literature， but the author should  explain why KMP have five factors and CC have seven, 

 The English is ok, but minor editing is required

Reviewer 3 Report

To all the Authors, The writing in the article is quite good. Instead, I would propose revising some of the sections so they can be published in a reputable journal. For example, the sustainability journal

1. I would ask that you modify the title. 2. I wasn't baised in the introduction. If you could perhaps provide more arguments for declaring problem statements, research gaps, and the like, I would greatly appreciate it. 3. How do assertions based on hypothesis support the study?— Could you please narrow your focus to a single point?

Thank you

Reviewer 4 Report

Assessment of construction competitiveness through knowledge management process implementation: structural equation modeling

In this manuscript, the analysis results suggest the construction companies focus on the KU, KD, and KR implementation to quickly improve the CC in the short term. Companies must attempt to fully utilize their current resources, especially the workforce, in sharing data, information, and experiences in solving work problems. Additionally, with the KS factor being a connection point between the CC and other KMP factors, it is suggested that work solutions should be documented and used in future projects. Investing in database systems may also help manage, access, sort, summarize, and utilize knowledge to enhance CC in the long term effects. However, there are still some weakness which needs revising. However, there are still some problems which need revising.

1. 2.1 & 2.2 are all “KMP factors in the construction industry”, what’s the difference between them?

2. Some more visual information such as figures and tables should be added to this part, in order to make it clearer for readers to know the educational findings of this research.

To sum up, considering the whole quality of this manuscript and the standard of this journal, I suggest that it should be rejected.

Assessment of construction competitiveness through knowledge management process implementation: structural equation modeling

In this manuscript, the analysis results suggest the construction companies focus on the KU, KD, and KR implementation to quickly improve the CC in the short term. Companies must attempt to fully utilize their current resources, especially the workforce, in sharing data, information, and experiences in solving work problems. Additionally, with the KS factor being a connection point between the CC and other KMP factors, it is suggested that work solutions should be documented and used in future projects. Investing in database systems may also help manage, access, sort, summarize, and utilize knowledge to enhance CC in the long term effects. However, there are still some weakness which needs revising. However, there are still some problems which need revising.

1. 2.1 & 2.2 are all “KMP factors in the construction industry”, what’s the difference between them?

2. Some more visual information such as figures and tables should be added to this part, in order to make it clearer for readers to know the educational findings of this research.

To sum up, considering the whole quality of this manuscript and the standard of this journal, I suggest that it should be rejected.

Reviewer 5 Report

“Structural Equation Modeling” method is an important mathematical method and was used effectively in the study.

In this paper authors, investigated the links between important KMP elements and create a self-assessment form of CC through KMP implementation. In this study authors used the structural equation modeling (SEM) technique. According to the SEM findings, five crucial KMP factors—knowledge utilization (KU), knowledge dissemination (KD), knowledge responsiveness (KR), knowledge storage (KS), and knowledge acquisition (KA)—have both direct and indirect effects on CC, and CC feedback is fed back into the KMP factors for ongoing improvement.

In my opinion, the paper is always clearly written and  enough self-contained.

The results given in this work seems to be correct and new.

Honestly the subject in it is really interesting in the meaning of a new graph

area.