Foresight for SOE Companies in Indonesia’s Construction Industry: Recognizing Future Opportunities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study investigates the foresight for SOE companies in Indonesia’s construction industry and future opportunities. It fits well with the scope of the journal. The following comments are provided for further considerations:

(1) Abbreviations in key words are recommended to use the full name.

(2) Small fonts in Figure 1 are unclear to see.

(3) "Building Information Modelling (BIM), which provides accurate building model designs up to 8D..." What does 8D mean?

(4) It is recommended to include some representative intelligent algorithms and the corresponding applications in the section of "Innovation and Technological Advancements".

(5) In the macro level, were there any national or industrial standards/specifications to guide the promotion of novel construction technology?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The following comments are to be incorporated by the authors to enhance the quality of the manuscript:

1. Using acronyms and abbreviations without a prior definition or stating the full meaning before their subsequent use is wrong and confusing for the readers. There are a few acronyms and abbreviations with no prior definition. For example, what do PESTLE, and LiDAR stand for in the Abstract? Every acronym must first be written in full before they are subsequently used. The authors should address this and similar instances in other parts of the manuscript.

2. There are a number of statements lacking requisite referencing and source citation and that cannot be regarded as general knowledge. For example, see the sentence in Lines 36-38. The authors should address this and similar instances in other parts of the manuscript.

3. The quality of Figure 1 is a bit blurry, especially the notes within the "three levels analysis" circle. The candidate needs to enhance the quality of the Figure and ensure all the labelling is legible.

4. The methodology section of the manuscript is not comprehensive enough to ensure and support its replicability. How the research method and approach were employed should be well-indicated and laid out by the authors.

5. Conclusions are meant to reflect the outcome of the study as inferred from the manuscript. The authors are implored to rework the Conclusion section and also provide recommendations to support the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx