Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper discussed the decision support model for selecting a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) for buildings. The authors use an Integrated Maintenance System (IMS) perspective and the SMARTS multicriteria method to evaluate five existing software options on the market. The criteria and sub-criteria involved in the model are structured in a decision tree and detailed in a checklist form. The minimum requirements for an IMS are defined and used to evaluate the software options. Overall, the paper appears to have a clear focus and purpose, and the research question and objectives are aligned with this focus. However, there are some concerns that need to be addressed before it can be considered for publication.

 

1) The introduction section is well written, however, the novelty and contribution to the body of knowledge must be explained more specifically in the last paragraph.

2) Lines 169-172, more explanation about all these technologies should be added. Write at least one line about each technology with reference its application in the construction industry. For example, BIM has a critical role in the tunnel construction industry......, and provide the following reference (i), second, the VR technology can be adopted for the design review process....  reference (ii), similarly for IOT and AR as well (iii) and (iv),

(i)Sharafat, A., Khan, M. S., Latif, K., & Seo, J. (2021). BIM-based tunnel information modeling framework for visualization, management, and simulation of drill-and-blast tunneling projects. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 35(2), 04020068.

(ii) Umair, M., Sharafat, A., Lee, D. E., & Seo, J. (2022). Impact of Virtual Reality-Based Design Review System on User’s Performance and Cognitive Behavior for Building Design Review Tasks. Applied Sciences, 12(14), 7249.

(iii) Li, X., Yi, W., Chi, H. L., Wang, X., & Chan, A. P. (2018). A critical review of virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) applications in construction safety. Automation in Construction, 86, 150-162.

(iv) Kanan, R., Elhassan, O., & Bensalem, R. (2018). An IoT-based autonomous system for workers' safety in construction sites with real-time alarming, monitoring, and positioning strategies. Automation in Construction, 88, 73-86.

3) There is a lack of detailed information on the specific methodology. The authors provide an overview of the equivalent frame digital twin approach, it lacks specific details on the methodology used, such as the specific algorithms, techniques, and parameters employed. Providing more in-depth information on the methodology would enhance the understanding and reproducibility of the research. The methodology section should be clear and detailed about the development of the algorithm and its working principle. I should be improved considering the following,
(i) The method section should be improved by providing more details on the SMARTS multicriteria method used to build the decision model.
(ii)The authors could explain how the method works, how it was applied in this study, and how it helped to evaluate the software options.
(ii)Additionally, the authors could provide more details on the data collection and analysis procedures used in the study, including how the minimum requirements for an IMS were defined and how they were used to evaluate the software options.

4) The authors discuss the decision support model for selecting a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) for buildings, and the authors use an Integrated Maintenance System (IMS) perspective and the SMARTS multicriteria method to evaluate five existing software options on the market. However, the paper does not provide a detailed discussion of the evaluation metrics used to assess the performance of the developed system.

5) Providing a more comprehensive discussion on the uncertainties, limitations, and potential sources of error would help readers understand the reliability and applicability of the approach in different scenarios.

 

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Please find attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

It is readable.

Author Response

Thank you for forwarding these helpful review reports.   Please see the attachment for our response reviews.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

see for my comments on the PDF versions for edits and queries to authors to help with corrections / revision

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

only minor corrections are in order - see my attachment here

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All comments have been successfully addressed, and this paper is now ready for potential publication.

Author Response

We appreciate the comments.