Situational Management and Digital Situational Awareness Systems in Infrastructure Construction: Managerial Perspectives on Relevance, Challenges, and Adoption

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors study the relevancy, challenges, and adoption of SM in IC projects using SA systems.

The topic is interesting and research around it is required to indicate that the SM combined with SA system utilization improves problem-solving skills and facilitates decision-making and open discussions among the IC management team.

Some comments to improve the paper and its readability are provided below:

1) Abstract: This section is presented well but one or two sentences on results need to be included. The keywords have to be capitalized.

2) Introduction: This section is presented well.

3) Literature review: This section is presented well

4) Method: This section is presented well.

5) Results and discussion: These two sections are presented well.

6) Conclusion: This section needs to be improved by adding more sentences about the results.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After a critical review, the observations regarding the study are as follows:

·       The title of the work needs to be revised keeping in view the objectives of study. It should also reflect the “digital” aspect being explored.

·       The abstract is too confusing. Needs proper revision keeping in view the objectives, methodology and outcome of the study. The language also needs a careful consideration with simple and short sentences. Too many abbreviations in the abstract are not recommended.

·       The study explores three aspects “relevancy, challenges and adoption” but abstract lacks clear finding about these aspects. The authors are required to include concrete findings of these aspects in abstract for reader’s interest.

·       Please clarify “Digital Situational Awareness” from “Situational Awareness” as both present varying concepts. Proper definitions need to be incorporated and how they are different form each other?

·       Introduction part needs revision. In current form, reader gets lost about the fact what the authors are actually presenting about their work.

·       What is justification of opening paragraph in literature review section staring with a question? And then one line with 5 references. So, what is contribution of these references in just one line?  

·       Please establish how current field of study is related to SM?

·       Authors are required to justify the such lower number of participants and how their work is validated in such a case?

·       Avoid long sentences that have been used in high frequency. Most sentences are more than three lines through out the work. Needs proper attention.

·       How data biasness and ethical considerations were ensured during data collection?

·       Since the authors have mentioned that “semi-structured interviews” were done. How the tool for such interviews was developed and how its variables were included? Needs proper rationalization.

·       What was the formulation of tool? What was the ration of open-ended questions? How the analysis have been performed? How the authors justify the standardized approach followed during the process? How sampling was done? There are numerous aspects about the methodology being adopted.

·       From the results, it seems that qualitative analysis was beneficial for the study. How the authors would look into this aspect?

·       Result section makes the reader confused to a large extent. Needs proper and logical refinements.

·       The language of paper needs critical review and careful consideration. The work has adopted long sentences most of the times. From reader’s view point, it makes it hard to understand and get the concept intended.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Quality of English requires proper attention. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is very well written and structured. I am happy for it to be considered for publication in its current format.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf