Technology Gap Analysis on the BIM-Enabled Design Process of Prefabricated Buildings: An Autoethnographic Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The paper titled "Technology gap Analysis on the BIM-enabled Design Process of Prefabricated Buildings: An Auto ethnographic Study to Enhance BIM and AI Integration" provides a detailed literature review that describes BIM-enabled design processes and gaps in BIM integration with prefabricated buildings. The use of auto ethnography is novel and allows in depth investigation of the research problem. The paper clearly identifies a technology gap and proposes a systematic solution. It uses thematic analysis to categorize the results and discusses it in a logical structure. The data collection methods employed, which includes focus groups and reflective journals, are appropriate and aligned with the approach used. The paper conclusions reflect its findings. However, I suggest considering the following to improve the paper:   

1. Present a case study that validate the effectiveness of the proposed methods.

2. Give more details to how focus group participants were selected and how the discussion was structured.

All the best to the authors.

Regards,

A reviewer 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We sincerely appreciate the invaluable feedback provided in this comment. The comment has been added to the manuscript file and acknowledged and addressed in our response to the reviewers’ letter, where we have provided a detailed explanation of the revisions made.

Best regards,

Authors of this paper

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See attached.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We sincerely appreciate the invaluable feedback provided in this comment. The comment has been added to the manuscript file and acknowledged and addressed in our response to the reviewers’ letter, where we have provided a detailed explanation of the revisions made.

Best regards,

Authors of this paper

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript focusses on very current and important topic by proposing an HRC-based prefabricated building complex design mode to prepare for integrating BIM and AI. It is well-organized and well-presented paper. It defines the research problem and hypothesis obviously while searching for solutions for the problem statement with the help of examples. It makes use of current references relevant to the subject, and contributes to the literature.

This original research study can be accepted and published as it is. No revision is needed.

• What is the main question addressed by the research?

The research explores the pivotal role of Building Information Modelling (BIM) technology in revolutionizing the design and construction of prefabricated buildings.

• Do you consider the topic original or relevant to the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? Please also explain why this is/ is not the case.

The manuscript focusses on very current and important topic by proposing an HRC-based prefabricated building complex design mode to prepare for integrating BIM and AI. This original/novel research study contributes to the literature in terms of the subject and the methodology used.

• What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

Employing auto ethnographic methods, the research refines BIM forward design through thematic analysis and technology gap assessments. It advocates for a comprehensive technology road-map, emphasizing the importance of BIM libraries, external data sources, and the transition to a 5D BIM environment.

• What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?

The methodology of the research is well designed and applicable. In terms of methods of data collection and analysis in Study 1, the research employed a ‘focus group’ method to produce and collect data within the prefabricated building design project, and a ‘thematic analysis’ method was used to examine focus group transcriptions to inform the systematic process of BIM forward design. In Study 2, it employed the ‘reflective journal’ approach to produce and gather data concerning the fictionalization of TGs, and a ‘narrative analysis’ method to scrutinize scripts extracted from the reflective journals.

• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? Please also explain why this is/is not the case.

It is well-organized and well-presented paper. It defines the research problem and hypothesis obviously while searching for solutions for the main question with the help of examples.

• Are the references appropriate?

It makes use of current references relevant to the subject.

• Any additional comments on the tables and figures.

The tables and figures are well organized, readable and understandable.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

We sincerely appreciate the invaluable feedback provided in this comment.

Best regards,

Authors of this paper

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have, perhaps, addressed some of my concerns by re-classifying their research article to a concept paper, which, apparently, does not have to present novel results. Since the Journal allows for such papers, my opposition is mitigated.

However, a concept paper should be accessible not just to a construction diehard but also to an educated layman. The latter, however, will not understand a single acronym from this paper. Regrettably, despite having no limit on the word count imposed by the Journal, the authors, by refusing to spell out their acronyms, effectively insist on making their paper legible only to construction professionals.

I will not repeat myself. But, let me note, for example, that the acronym BIM is not widely used outside of the construction profession; in fact, in slang, it means "a woman of loose morals." So, I would still recommend spelling out this and all the other acronyms. I leave the decision of whether or not to do so to the discretion of the authors and the academic editor.

The authors response notwithstanding, I stand by my previous evaluation and my recommendation of major revision. As I wrote earlier (in my original review),

"The main problem with this paper is the fact that, contrary to the claims by the authors, there are no novel results, no modeling, no new applications. In fact, the authors themselves admit that their paper is actually a proposal."

If the editor sees a point in publishing a concept paper, which the authors wrote as a proposal, and which is devoid of novel results, applications, or contributions, I defer to him/her.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of the English language is recommended.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We sincerely appreciate the invaluable feedback provided in this comment. The comment has been added to the manuscript file and acknowledged and addressed in our response to the reviewers’ letter, where we have provided a detailed explanation of the revisions made.

Best regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title is long and redundant: the phrase "Building Information Modeling" is used twice in it. TRIM the title.

The abstract is also redundant: it uses the phrase "Building Information Modeling" 6 times. TRIM the abstract.

I stand by my original review from round 1:

"The main problem with this paper is the fact that contrary to the claims by the authors, there are no novel results, [no equations], no modeling, no new applications. In fact, the authors themselves admit that their paper is actually a proposal."

Although the authors renamed now the type of the article to a "concept paper," they did not provide any new results, new equations, new modeling, or new applications. The figures in the paper are not original (mostly borrowed from other publications) and thus they do not offer any new contributions, perhaps except for  Figure 7, which presents the UNTESTED concept promoted by the authors.

Furthermore, the paper is still peppered with obfuscating and unestablished acronyms.

As I stated in my original review:

"As the authors themselves explicitly admit, their paper represents a proposal (well-developed) [now renamed to a concept paper]. However, again, a proposal can NOT be published as a research paper [nor as a concept paper if it offers NO NEW, even preliminary, results]."

And, again:

"This could be a nice paper if the authors expand it by applying their proposal to a particular study using their methodology and comparing the results to those from solving the same problem using a traditional approach. The comparison should show the benefits of your proposed methodology. These benefits should be quantifiable."

Since the authors have not really taken my recommendations into account, I recommend now rejection with an invitation to resubmit.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See my original review.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

I hope this email finds you well. I understand that this may not align with standard publication protocol, but I felt it important to reach out on behalf of all the authors. While we have carefully and thoroughly addressed all of your comments across three rounds of review, we remain somewhat confused by your feedback in three key areas, especially in light of the positive feedback and prompt acceptance we received from Reviewers 1 and 3.

1. Acronym revision:
   You mentioned that you were unfamiliar with acronyms like BIM (Building Information Modeling), which surprised us, particularly as the Buildings journal focuses on the architecture and construction fields. BIM is widely recognized, with over 1,290,000 citations on Google Scholar. Similarly, the other acronyms we used (e.g., HRC, PBE, RIR) are well-established in international standards, professional literature, and academic institutions. Nevertheless, we complied with your request and spelled out 'BIM' and made other relevant revisions. However, you now state that our paper has become too wordy.

2. Novelty and originality of our research:
   We have repeatedly clarified that the novelty of our Concept Paper lies in offering a fresh perspective on addressing a specific issue, providing innovative solutions, and insights for future exploration. Relevant additions and revisions have been marked in light blue in the manuscript's Abstract, Discussion, and Conclusion sections. Despite our clarifications, you continue to claim that our figures are not original and have been borrowed from other sources. This was quite surprising, as we are well aware of the importance of proper citation when reusing images. In fact, Figure 1 is a visual summary of the literature review with all sources appropriately cited, while Figures 2-7 are entirely original, representing the outputs from our research and design process.

3. Our qualitative autoethnographic methodology:
   Our Concept Paper adopts an autoethnographic, qualitative approach to explore subjective experiences and challenges in integrating AI and BIM for prefabricated buildings. This methodology enables a deeper exploration of these experiences and the nuances of the BIM-enabled design process. Our primary aim is to identify technology gaps and propose a conceptual framework, rather than conducting a quantitative case study, which we suggest as a direction for future research. We were surprised that you disregarded the detailed justification of our methodology in the manuscript’s Research Design section, which, in effect, undermines the foundation of the study.

We truly value your time and feedback and are eager to resolve these concerns. We hope this email clarifies our perspective, and we would be most grateful for any further guidance or clarification you could provide.

Thank you once again for your time and consideration.

Kind regards,

All authors of this paper