The Future of Construction: Integrating Innovative Technologies for Smarter Project Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The problem of the study is not adequately outlined. There is a need to outline the challenges faced in the construction industry of Chad that has necessitated the study. Also, numerous studies have been done on the the application and/or adoption of innovation technologies, even within the African continent. The question is: What is the new knowledge contribution from this study? There is a need for the authors to establish the point of departure from existing studies, which would lend some credence for the need of the current study. 

There is a need to critically look at sections 1.3 and 1.5. What is the difference between both sections considering they are dwelling on challenges and barriers respectively.

Principal Axis Factoring is a method of extraction deployed for EFA. There are quite a few of these methods.

The sampling techniques used in the study was not well spelt out. 

Why the focus on only Architects and Engineers? Are there not other professionals in the Chadian construction industry?

There is a need to justify the use of 79 responses for the use of Exploratory Factor Analysis. Is this number adequate for the data analysis technique?

The development of the variables which were fed into the research instrument (questionnaire) was not well detailed. There is not indication from the literature review that the variables emantaed from the literature reviewed. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your insightful feedback. We appreciate your comments and have carefully addressed them below.

1. Problem Statement and Contribution to Knowledge

We recognize the importance of clearly articulating the study’s research problem. To enhance clarity, we have refined the introduction to explicitly underscore the key challenges hindering Chad’s construction industry, including technological limitations, financial constraints, and regulatory hurdles, which justify the need for this research. While innovation adoption in Africa has been widely studied, Chad remains underrepresented in this discourse. This study bridges that gap by identifying country-specific barriers, proposing tailored policy recommendations, and integrating stakeholder perspectives to develop a robust framework for digital transformation. These contributions, which distinguish our research from the existing literature, are clearly outlined in the revised manuscript. 

Additionally, given the thematic similarities between Sections 1.3 and 1.5, we have consolidated them to improve coherence and enhance the overall flow of the text.

2. Methodology and Sampling Justification

We acknowledge the need to provide a more precise justification for the use of Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) in Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). PAF was chosen due to its robustness in handling non-normal data and its effectiveness in identifying underlying factor structures. We have elaborated on this rationale in the methodology section.

Regarding sampling, we have provided an explicit description of the sampling technique employed and justify our focus on architects and engineers. These professionals were selected because they play a crucial role in decision-making and implementing innovation. However, we recognize that other professionals, such as project managers and quantity surveyors, may also play a role.

We also noted the concern regarding the adequacy of 79 responses for EFA. While larger samples are typically preferred, factor analysis can still be conducted with smaller samples if commonalities are high, and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure supports sampling adequacy. We have reported these tests and discussed any implications for our findings.

3. Research Instrument and Literature Linkage

To strengthen the development of the research instrument, we have revised the literature review to explicitly show how each variable was derived from existing studies. This will ensure that our questionnaire is firmly rooted in prior research. Additionally, we have clarified how the identified factors contribute to addressing the research questions.

We appreciate your constructive comments and have incorporated these revisions to enhance the rigor and clarity of the study.

Sincerely,
HOULJAKBE HOULTEURBE DAGOU
YILDIZ TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is the first paper I am reading from a Chad researcher! Well done!

The Introduction section is too long and the sections should be in paragraph rather than numbering them

The Introduction section also has been written beautifully. But there is nothing new here and hundreds of other articles have focused on these technologies in different contexts.

My question is: What are the issues in the Chad construction industry that requires urgent attention of digital technologies? 

Section 1.5 should be about the Chad industry. What are the characteristics of it. I have read about so many contextual descriptions of the construction sector of many contries and I have not seen any from Chad. Hence, I am excited to read this. I recommend a section to discuss - The current state of the Chad construction sector. How does it measure up with other developing countries? 

Also, what sampling approach was used to select the respondents for this study?

What are the implications of the findings?

The practical and theoretical implication and contribution of the study should be highlighted.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your kind words and your thoughtful feedback. We greatly appreciate your constructive suggestions, and we have made several revisions to the manuscript based on your comments to enhance its clarity and overall quality.

1. Improvements to the Introduction Section:

We have taken note of your comment regarding the length and structure of the Introduction section. In response, we have restructured this part to present the content in more coherent sections, improving the flow and readability. Additionally, while acknowledging that many studies have focused on similar technologies, we have emphasized the unique aspects of our research, particularly the specific challenges within Chad’s construction sector. The revised introduction now clearly outlines the importance of digital technologies for Chad, setting the context for the remainder of the paper.

2. Addressing Chad’s Construction Industry and Current Challenges:

In line with your suggestion, we have expanded Section 1.5 to provide an in-depth discussion of the current state of Chad’s construction industry. This new section highlights key issues, including outdated infrastructure, a lack of skilled workforce, and limited adoption of advanced technologies. We also compare Chad’s industry with that of other developing countries, highlighting the unique challenges faced by Chad and the urgent need for technological integration. This section now provides a clearer understanding of why digital technologies are critical for modernizing the construction sector in Chad.

3. Sampling Approach and Implications of Findings:

To address your inquiry about the sampling approach, we have clarified that we used a purposive sampling method to select architects, engineers, and other key stakeholders in the construction sector. This approach ensured that we captured insights from those with direct involvement in technology adoption. We have also made the practical and theoretical implications of our findings more explicit. Practically, the study highlights the need for policy interventions and workforce training to support digital transformation in Chad's construction industry. Theoretically, it contributes to the literature by focusing on the underexplored context of Chad, providing new insights into technology adoption in the construction sector.

We believe these revisions address your concerns and strengthen the overall manuscript. Thank you again for your invaluable feedback. We look forward to any additional comments you may have.

Sincerely,

HOULJAKBE HOULTEURBE DAGOU

YILDIZ TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 I do not think that this paper meets the requirements of journal publication, and the author needs to revise it carefully and think about the topic of the research again. The comments are as follows:

1. The biggest problem of the paper is that the purpose and significance of the research are not clear, which needs to be clearly defined in the abstract and the first part of the body; Are the objectives of the construction project consistent with the objectives of integrating innovative technologies?

2. The key concepts of "integrating", "innovative technology", and "information technology" are not clear, and the text does not reflect the meaning of "integrating"；

3. Many contents in the paper are repeated, such as parts 1.3 and 1.5; Parts 1.4 and 1.6; Part IV and Part I; The contents of this class can be briefly stated;

4. What is the basis or source of topic selection in Table 1? How to embody science and rigor; In addition, how are the 9 key topics related to the 6 SDGtopics? Is there any conflict or duplication? This section lacks further statement;

5. The paper attaches too much importance to data analysis, but neglects the research theme and the significance brought by the data;

6. The third part of the paper can further analyze the importance or difference of factors, so as to provide support for the discussion of the fourth part; In addition, the logic among the factors in the paper is scattered, and I feel that there is a lack of systematic thinking;

7. How are the 98 problems mentioned in article L334 represented in the data analysis?

8. In article L524, what is the basis for dividing the 6 factors into two categories? The explanation in this paper is far-fetched and lacks the support of data and literature.

9. The overall logic of the paper is not strong, and there are too many secondary titles.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed feedback. We sincerely appreciate your insights, which have been invaluable in enhancing the quality of our paper. Below is a summary of the revisions made in response to your comments:

1. Clarifying Purpose, Significance, and Key Concepts:

In response to your comment regarding the clarity of the research purpose and significance, we have revised both the abstract and introduction to more explicitly highlight the challenges in Chad’s construction sector that necessitate this study. We now clearly outline how the integration of innovative technologies, such as BIM, AI, and IoT, addresses key industry issues and aligns with broader sustainability and efficiency goals.

Additionally, we have provided more precise definitions of key concepts, such as "integration," "innovative technology," and "information technology." The revised manuscript now provides a more precise explanation of how these technologies are applied within the context of construction project management.

2. Repetition, Structure, and Table 1 Clarification:

To address the issue of repetition, we have combined Sections 1.3 and 1.5, as well as Sections 1.4 and 1.6. This restructuring reduces redundancy and ensures that the content flows more cohesively.

Furthermore, we have expanded on the rationale behind the topics listed in Table 1. The new version provides a more detailed explanation of the sources of these topics and their connections to the six Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We have also clarified the relationships between the issues and addressed any potential overlap or duplication.

3. Emphasizing Research Theme and Data Analysis:

We have revised the manuscript to give more prominence to the research theme, ensuring that the data analysis does not overshadow it. The revised version places a stronger emphasis on the importance of integrating innovative technologies into Chad's construction industry while still presenting the data in a meaningful context.

Additionally, we have expanded the analysis in Section 3 to provide a clearer understanding of the significance of the identified factors. This enhanced analysis strengthens the overall structure and connection between the factors, supporting the subsequent discussion in Section 4.

4. Factor Categorization, Logic, and Overall Structure:

To address your comment about the categorization of factors in Article L524, we have provided a more robust explanation for dividing the six factors into two categories. This revision incorporates additional support from both data and relevant literature, thereby enhancing the scientific rigor of the categorization.

Lastly, we have reorganized the manuscript to improve the overall logical flow and ensured a smoother narrative from start to finish. These changes have helped enhance the coherence and clarity of the paper.

We are grateful for your valuable suggestions, which have contributed significantly to refining the paper. We believe that the revisions now better align with the journal’s requirements and are confident that the improved version addresses your concerns. We look forward to receiving any further feedback you may have.

Sincerely,

HOULJAKBE HOULTEURBE DAGOU

YILDIZ TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The set aim for the study, as stated in the abstract and the introduction section, does not seem to tie in with the study's findings. A good example is the statement in the abstract section: "This study examines the integration of these innovations into Chad’s construction sector, drawing on insights from 79 industry participants." This does not seem to be speaking to the eventual findings made in the study. This needs to be looked into.

"This technique enabled the identification of underlying patterns within the responses, providing a deeper insight into how innovative technologies impact construction project management in Chad (55)". I do not understand how this statement needs to be cited. 

Section 3.2.1 - An interview was conducted in the study. It was not stated how this was done, the selection of the interviewees (how was this done), at what point saturation was reached, etc. Clarity is needed on this.

As stated in the last review, the major challenge with the current study is how the measurement variables were derived. For example, what is IIT 4 or CPS5 or SC3? This does not make any meaningful reflection on the outcome of the study. For example, these variables must be stated to give appreciation to the formed construct or component from the EFA. 

Also, there seems to be a pre-determined/pre-expected outcome from the EFA process, as the constructs or components were already grouped, as shown in Table 1. EFA is used to explore the possibilities of the groupings of a set of variables having underlying similar features, thus reducing the number of variables. 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

We are pleased to resubmit the revised version of our manuscript, "The Future of Construction: Integrating Innovative Technologies for Smarter Project Management" (Manuscript ID: sustainability-3538342). We have carefully addressed the insightful feedback provided during the review process and made substantial revisions to enhance the paper's clarity, coherence, and overall quality.

We are grateful for your constructive observations, which helped us identify areas that needed further refinement. In response, we have removed the citation in the sentence under discussion, as it did not correspond to any specific external source. The revised sentence now focuses solely on the analytical insights drawn from our findings.

Additionally, we would like to clarify that our study did not include any interviews. The research was entirely based on a quantitative survey approach. We believe the mention of interviews may have been a misunderstanding, and we have re-examined the manuscript to ensure that no such references remain.

Regarding the issue of measurement variables, we have included a detailed table that defines each variable (e.g., IIT4, CPS5, SC3) and indicates the construct to which it belongs. To illustrate, CPS5 demonstrated a strong factor loading of 0.694 and contributes meaningfully to the construct labeled “Correlation with Project Success.” Likewise, SC3, with a loading of 0.569, was retained due to its relevance to the “Stakeholder Communication” dimension. Conversely, IIT4 was not included in the final interpretation since its loading fell below the 0.5 threshold we set for statistical significance.

Finally, we would like to stress that the groupings shown in Table 1 reflect our initial conceptual framework developed during the instrument design stage. However, the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted independently of this framework. No assumptions or fixed groupings were imposed beforehand; the resulting components emerged strictly from the data.

We hope that the revised manuscript now meets your expectations. We remain enthusiastic about the opportunity to publish our work in Sustainability. Please feel free to contact us for additional information or clarification.

Thank you once again for your thoughtful review and consideration.

Kind regards,
HOULJAKBE HOULTEURBE DAGOU

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am now happy with the level of responses provided. Please proceed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your positive feedback and for reviewing our manuscript in depth.

We truly appreciate your constructive comments and thoughtful suggestions, which have significantly helped us improve our work's clarity, rigor, and overall quality. We are especially pleased to hear that you are now satisfied with the level of responses provided.

It has been a privilege to engage in this review process, and we are grateful for your support in moving the manuscript forward.

Kind regards,
HOULJAKBE HOULTEURBE DAGOU

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think that the author has made a certain analysis of the problems existing in the original paper, and has also added relevant content, to the extent that it can be published.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you sincerely for your thoughtful evaluation and encouraging remarks.

We truly appreciate your recognition of the revisions and the analytical improvements made to the manuscript. Your constructive feedback throughout the review process has been invaluable in refining the paper and strengthening its overall contribution.

We are grateful for your recommendation that the manuscript is now suitable for publication, and we look forward to the next steps with optimism.

With kind regards,

HOULJAKBE HOULTEURBE DAGOU

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf