Construction Waste Documentation System in Poland: Current State and Prospects for Automation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer Report

Journal :Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050)

Manuscript ID : sustainability-3983492

Type :Article

Title: Construction waste documentation system in Poland: current state and prospects for automation

Authors :Joanna Sagan * , Paula Wojtaszek

Section :Sustainable Engineering and Science

 

• Abstract provides a brief synopsis of the research. But it omits the scope or validity of the case study. Provide details regarding the group size and the representativeness of the outcomes for using the IT tool (p1, lines 19–26). Limits should be discussed in the final sentence (p1, lines 27–29).
• Significance of the study is explained in the introduction. However, the introduction should include the areas where Polish construction waste management was not fully digitalized in the past and providing evidence for these points from the literature (p2, lines 73–75).
• Clearly state how the research topics connect to industry needs and gaps (p3, lines 92–100). Modify the text to emphasize that the study is being conducted for both practical and intellectual purposes.
• Technique explains process mapping, interviews, and case studies well, but more details are needed for clear understanding. Provide particulars on the selection process, such as the number and type of participating building companies (p4, lines 142-146).
• Specify the measurements that will be used to gauge the workload reduction. Do all administrative positions, for instance, or only specific kinds of record keeping qualify? Clarify the formula's (p4, lines 147–151).
• Explain the methodology of the IT tool market review. Will it comprehensive, and were any criteria applied to determine which tools to include? (Lines 133–137, page 4).
• Findings section is well-structured. But certain sections require clarification to ensure their reusability and clarity.
• Provide additional information about how each program feature was rated and describe any evaluation criteria that were arbitrary. Table 4 (lines 358–362, p. 10).
• Indicate statistical dispersion (standard deviation or median) for time savings that have been demonstrated. If the changes are statistically significant . Figure 2 (lines 381-385, p. 11).
• Cost-benefit analysis Provide a sensitivity analysis to allow for changes in project sizes or and be clear about assumptions (p. 12, lines 403–407).
• Discussion cleverly links the findings to their implications for the entire company. But more thorough examination of methodological limitations would be beneficial for the study
• Include comprehensive external validity review in the limitations paragraph (lines 477–484, pp. 13–14).
• Discuss the effects of automating human record entries on data accuracy. Is it still preferable to check by hand, or is there a danger of making new types of errors? Lines 457–459, page 13.
• Future plans (p. 14, lines 468–473): What does "selected components of Industry 4.0 technologies" mean to you specifically? Provide instances such as blockchain record storage, IoT sensor integration, or predictive analytics.
• Although the writing is generally good, there are a few corrections that may be made. Tables and figures should have unambiguous labels and adhere to journal style rules. More comprehensive explanations explaining all of the acronyms and axes are required for Table 4 and Fig.2 (p10–11, lines 362–385).
• Numerous references are used. Be sure to cite the sources used to support particular assertions. (e.g., p2-3, lines 44–74).
• Results are well summarized in the conclusions, but they could emphasize the limitations once again and discuss the implications of the findings (p13, lines 419–476).
• Recommend including a list of concrete recommendations in the form of bullet points for legislators and practitioners (p14, lines 469–475).
• First time an acronym is used in the paper, it should be explained, such as KPO, KEO, and BDO (see page 5, lines 187–214).
• Avoid lengthy phrases, particularly in the methods to enhance readability.
• The knowledge gap should be clearly stated.
• References should be arranged as per the journal format.

Overall Recommendation: Minor revision is recommended to this submission

These corrections would improve the content of the manuscript and significantly increase the citations

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, you will find our response to your review in the attached file. Thank you for your time and commitment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well structured, clearly written, and addresses an under-explored research gap concerning the administrative and technical challenges of documenting construction waste under national regulations. The combination of qualitative methods (expert interviews, process mapping, participant observation) and quantitative methods (time-efficiency measurements and ROI analysis) makes the paper potentially valuable for both academic and professional audiences.

However, several issues limit its current contribution:

1. Lack of a clear conceptual framework
   While the introduction refers to the European Green Deal and broader digitalization trends, it does not establish a sufficiently strong conceptual or theoretical foundation (e.g., digital governance, digital public administration, circular economy implementation barriers, socio-technical systems). This weakens the academic contribution.
   The authors are encouraged to enrich the introduction or add a dedicated subsection linking the study to established theories or conceptual models such as Digital Transformation in Waste Management, socio-technical transition theory, or process digitalization frameworks.
2. Methodological details are insufficiently described
   The study relies on interviews, participant observation, and a comparative time-efficiency analysis. However, several methodological aspects remain unclear:
   • How many industry interviews were conducted and what were the profiles of the participants?
   • How were the 30 participants in the efficiency study selected—random sampling, purposive sampling, or convenience sampling?
   • What analytical guidelines, coding strategies, or validation procedures were applied for qualitative data?
   • How was the one-month internship structured and documented?
     The current description resembles a project report more than a rigorous scientific methodology. Additional methodological transparency is required.
3. Potential bias in evaluating a single commercial tool (BDO Manager)
   A major portion of the study evaluates one specific software product (BDO Manager), described as offering the “broadest functionality.” This may appear promotional or biased unless the authors clarify their approach.
   Concerns include:
   • Lack of clear criteria for selecting this tool over the other eight identified systems.
   • Only this tool is tested empirically; alternative tools are not benchmarked.
   • The efficiency data come from existing users of the same tool, which may reduce objectivity.
     The authors should justify the selection, acknowledge potential bias, and explain how neutrality was maintained. If possible, comparing at least one alternative tool would strengthen the balance and credibility of the findings.
4. Results require deeper analytical interpretation
   Although the process maps, bottlenecks, and time-savings are clearly presented, the analytical depth is limited. The authors should elaborate on:
   • Why particular bottlenecks emerge within the BDO system,
   • How these findings compare with digitalization challenges in other national waste documentation systems,
   • Broader implications for national waste governance and regulatory efficiency.
     This would elevate the contribution beyond descriptive analysis.
5. Structural issues and missing conceptual linkage (page 4)
   The section numbering under 3.1 must be corrected, as two sections currently share the same label.
   Additionally, the conceptual relationship between “3.1 BDO System” and “3.2 Construction Waste Management” should be explicitly articulated—potentially under a new subsection (e.g., 3.3). A partial attempt exists within section 3.2, but it should be significantly strengthened.
6. Need for a methodological flow diagram (page 3)
   Readers would benefit from the inclusion of a “Research Flow” figure that visually summarizes the methodological framework, showing each step, its purpose, and expected outputs. This would enhance clarity and transparency.
7. ROI calculation should be explained in the methodology (page 12)
   The purpose, rationale, and general formula of the ROI calculation should be introduced earlier in the Materials and Methods section rather than appearing abruptly in the Results.
8. Missing Conclusion section
   A clear and comprehensive Conclusion section synthesizing all major findings and emphasizing their implications should be added.
9. Discussion section should be expanded
   The Discussion should further elaborate on the conceptual, practical, and managerial implications of the study. This will strengthen the relevance of the paper for Sustainability’s multidisciplinary readership.
10. Insufficient reporting of interview details
    Although the Materials and Methods section states that unstructured interviews were conducted, the number of experts involved and their demographic or professional characteristics are not reported. These details should be added to the Findings section to enhance transparency and credibility.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, you will find our response to your review in the attached file. Thank you for your time and commitment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s), 

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript titled "Construction waste documentation system in Poland: current state and prospects for automation". Although the topic is of interest to the journal, several concerns should be addressed. 

At a foundational level, the manuscript frames digital documentation challenges primarily as technological inefficiencies: repetitive data entry, workflow complexity, and limited export functionality. While these issues are real and clearly evidenced, the paper narrowly attributes them to interface design and lack of automation. This approach overlooks deeper structural and organizational factors that shape digital system performance—factors extensively discussed in recent literature on digital transformation. For example, contemporary research on AI and digital literacy emphasizes that technological bottlenecks often stem from insufficient organizational capacity, inadequate training, or the absence of managerial digital competencies (Benlian & Pinski, 2025; Neumeyer & Liu, 2021). Yet the manuscript does not examine literacy barriers, user readiness, or skill deficits, despite acknowledging that BDO operations involve multiple stakeholders with varying technological proficiency. As a result, the analytical framing remains overly narrow and predominantly technical, missing the opportunity to connect administrative challenges with broader human, managerial, and organizational dynamics.

The methodological section also requires significant strengthening. The manuscript claims to be based on expert interviews, unstructured interviews with industry representatives, and participant observation during a one-month internship; however, these components are described only superficially. There is no information about sample size for interviews, backgrounds of participants, recruitment procedures, interview protocols, or analytical methods. It is unclear whether interviews were transcribed, coded, or systematically analyzed, raising concerns about reliability and reproducibility. The participant observation similarly lacks methodological grounding: no details are provided on the nature of tasks observed, how biases were mitigated, or how findings were recorded. For a study heavily reliant on field-based qualitative insights, these omissions are problematic and fall below the expectations for empirical rigor in a peer-reviewed journal.

The process mapping and bottleneck identification are clearly presented, but they largely restate what is already evident in the BDO system’s publicly available documentation. While the diagrams in Appendix A and B assist in visualizing workflow steps, they mainly consolidate procedural information rather than generating new analytical insight. Moreover, the bottleneck analysis implicitly assumes that digitization and automation will resolve administrative issues, without critically examining whether these problems may derive from regulatory design, cross-agency coordination failures, or structural constraints inherent in waste governance. The analysis does not consider whether improving BDO’s interface simply masks deeper systemic shortcomings in Poland’s waste reporting architecture.

The empirical evaluation of BDO Manager’s efficiency gains—reducing KPO issuance time from 66 to 15 seconds and automating KEO entries—represents the central evidence for the manuscript’s claims about automation benefits. However, the study design is insufficiently rigorous. Timing measurements are self-reported by users rather than independently recorded, introducing measurement bias. No variance statistics (e.g., standard deviation) are provided, and the sample size (30 users across seven companies) is too small to support strong generalizable claims, especially given the heterogeneity of construction projects. The ROI calculation is based on a single high-volume demolition company and assumes linear scalability of time savings across all transports, which is unlikely given varying project conditions. Furthermore, the analysis does not include costs of training, onboarding, or organizational adaptation—factors that literature on digital transformation identifies as central to realizing digital benefits (Neumeyer & Liu, 2021). As a result, the economic conclusions are overstated and should be interpreted cautiously.

The discussion section makes forward-looking claims about integration with BIM, ERP, and GIS systems, yet these suggestions remain speculative and disconnected from empirical evidence. The manuscript does not analyze any integration challenges, user adoption barriers, or data governance issues. Moreover, the link to sustainability outcomes is weak. While the paper is positioned as contributing to the goals of the European Green Deal, it does not demonstrate environmental impact, improved recycling rates, reduced waste generation, or enhanced circular-material flows. The contribution is administrative efficiency—not sustainability—and this distinction needs to be made explicitly, particularly for a journal that prioritizes environmental significance.

Finally, the limitations section briefly acknowledges contextual constraints but does not sufficiently confront the study’s methodological and conceptual shortcomings. The reliance on a single digital tool, the lack of generalizability across company types, the absence of longitudinal data, and the potential conflicts of interest (given the strong emphasis on one specific application) warrant fuller and more critical reflection.

References

Benlian, A., & Pinski, M. (2025). The AI literacy development canvas: Assessing and building AI literacy in organizations. Business Horizons.

Neumeyer, X., & Liu, M. (2021). Managerial competencies and development in the Digital Age. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 49(3), 49–55.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Typos and grammatical errors should be fixed. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, you will find our response to your review in the attached file. Thank you for your time and commitment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made a substantial effort to address the major concerns raised in the first round of review. Compared to the initial submission, the revised manuscript is considerably improved in structure, methodological transparency, and analytical depth. Most of the previously identified weaknesses have been either fully or partially resolved. there is onlu one issue needs to be corrected:

In the Materials and Methods section, Page 6 Line 256 the sensitivity analysis conducted within the scope of the study is described only in a very superficial manner. The manuscript does not clearly explain how the sensitivity analysis was performed. In particular, it remains unclear which parameters were varied, what analytical procedure was followed, and whether any specific software or computational tool was used. For the sake of methodological transparency and reproducibility, the authors should provide a clearer and more detailed explanation of the sensitivity analysis methodology.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for re-reading the manuscript and some more guidelines. In response, the Materials and Methods section has been revised to provide a clearer and more detailed description of the sensitivity analysis:

To supplement the baseline return-on-investment analysis with the perspective of enterprises operating at different scales, a deterministic one-parameter sensitivity analysis was conducted. Its objective was to determine how the economic performance of the analysed IT system varies with the operational scale of an enterprise. The analysis focused on the sensitivity of the return on investment (ROI) indicator to the annual number of Waste Transfer Cards (KPOs) processed by the system, which was adopted as a proxy for the scale of waste-management operations in construction enterprises. The following parameters were treated as constant: the median monthly gross sa-lary of administrative staff in Poland and the average time savings per documentation cycle (one KPO and two corresponding KEO entries), as determined empirically. The system’s cost structure was modelled in accordance with the software provider’s official pricing scheme, under which the subscription cost depends on the volume of processed documents; consequently, the unit cost of handling a single KPO decreases with increasing operational scale and stabilises after exceeding a defined volume threshold. The analysis covered an annual number of KPOs in the range of 0–6,000, enabling the assessment of the ROI indicator for enterprises of different sizes — from small entities to large construction and demolition companies. The sensitivity analysis was deterministic in nature and was aimed at identifying scale effects rather than modelling probabilistic uncertainty.  

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

Thank you for taking the time to revise the manuscript. Overall, I am satisfied with the changes. However, I would suggest to proof read your manuscript one more time. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Typos and grammatical errors should be fixed. 

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestion to review the article again. Indeed, there were minor linguistic errors and typos in the text. The manuscript has been proofread once again, and minor linguistic and stylistic corrections have been introduced throughout the text to improve clarity and consistency.