The Implementation Factors of Information and Communication Technology in the Life Cycle Costs of Buildings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Despite the evident authors' effort, the paper has a number of significant shortcomings:

1. Methodological :
   The methodology of implementation factors selection had to be explained very clearly.  It was necessary to explain each of the selected factors and the impact on the life cycle of costs (LCC). That is the basis of the research and the reasons for choosing exactly those factors should be clear, as well as their significance and impact on the LCC (e.g. What "Fragmentation of the sector and integration among participants in construction projects" exactly means and how that factor exactly affects the LCC? 
2. Substantive:

         The article abounds in descriptions, some of which are very extensive    and scientifically insufficiently clear, precise and structured. On the other hand, clear and precise methodological descriptions of the implemented procedures are missing, as stated under 1, but there are still shortcomings.

3. English language

The English language is very bad, somewhere to the extent that the parts of the paper, are incomprehensible, unclear and difficult to read. Professional translation of the paper is strongly recommended. 

4. Others

In addition to the above, there are other shortcomings (tables are not legible because  the boundary between data groups are not clearly visible, figure 1. should be improved, some structural shortcomings in the text should be corrected...

Due to the above under 1. 2. and 3. the reviewer considers that the scope of the required corrections exceeds the major revision and therefore recommends the rejection of the paper. The Authors are encouraged to follow the recommendations and resubmit the paper.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate your opinion on the research results and we would like to thank you very much for the informative and valuable comments that allowed us to improve our manuscript. We have tried to incorporate all your comments and suggestions. All edits where your comments have been taken into account are highlighted in grey (other colours are comments from other reviewers). At the same time, we add a point-by-point explanation of how we did the changes:

1: Q:  Methodological
The methodology of implementation factors selection had to be explained very clearly.  It was necessary to explain each of the selected factors and the impact on the life cycle of costs (LCC). That is the basis of the research and the reasons for choosing exactly those factors should be clear, as well as their significance and impact on the LCC (e.g. What "Fragmentation of the sector and integration among participants in construction projects" exactly means and how that factor exactly affects the LCC?  

A: 

• We have added information to the introduction and to the literature review. As suggested, in tab. 2. Information on the selection of implementation factors has been added and what each of the selected factors means, and how it can affect the life cycle cost (LCC).
• These implementation factors were first discussed with selected practitioners. Their comments and expert advice were taken into account, and together the final formulation of implementation factors took place. This pre-research ensured a strict selection and formulation of implementation factors. Cronbach's alpha also tested these questions for the selection of these factors. Implementation factors that were not appropriate and were not considered appropriate by the experts for listing potential implementation factors were not further investigated.

 

2: Q: Substantive:

The article abounds in descriptions, some of which are very extensive    and scientifically insufficiently clear, precise and structured. On the other hand, clear and precise methodological descriptions of the implemented procedures are missing, as stated under 1, but there are still shortcomings.

A: 

• Thanks for the suggestion. Several formulations and descriptions have been reworded. These phrases are marked in the text.

 

Q: 3. English language

The English language is very bad, somewhere to the extent that the parts of the paper, are incomprehensible, unclear and difficult to read. Professional translation of the paper is strongly recommended. 

A: 

• The text has been edited. Several passages have been restructured and reformulated. However, if necessary, we are open to further language editing and professional help from the publisher.

Q:4: Others

In addition to the above, there are other shortcomings (tables are not legible because  the boundary between data groups are not clearly visible, figure 1. should be improved, some structural shortcomings in the text should be corrected...

A: 

• Figure 1 was deleted after suggestion by other reviewers. The remaining tables were modified according to the design to improve readability and the results were more clear to understand.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The research includes which are the most important implementation factors for information and communication technologies used in cost management during the life cycle. The research confirmed the hypothesis that investment costs of technologies are the most important.

During the study, were the participants asked the question which of them already uses such tools?

Has it been estimated what are the benefits of implementing the technology, e.g. in reducing construction costs or reducing or increasing the involvement of project participants related to the use of the system.

Some remarks could be improve the quality of the paper.

Table 2. is in line 150 in line 238 should be table 3 not Figure 2

Line 360 should be table 4

Line 429 should be table 5

Line 456 should be table 6

Table line 238-239 such high accuracy is unnecessary, enough to be accurate to the tenth part

Table line 238-239 last line 21 years and more

Table line 238-239 last column Cumulative % Seems unnecessary I do not fully understand why it was added

Table line 429 isn't it enough to write that everyone took part, is column Number of valid responses necessary

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate your opinion on the research results and we would like to thank you very much for the informative and valuable comments that allowed us to improve our manuscript. We have tried to incorporate all your comments and suggestions. All edits where your comments have been taken into account are highlighted in yellow (other colours are comments from other reviewers). At the same time, we add a point-by-point explanation of how we did the changes:

During the study, were the participants asked the question which of them already uses such tools?

• Thank you for idea and suggestions, we agree, and it was done. Yes, the participants should also indicate the level of ICT use and quantify the impact on LCC and improve communication between participants in the construction project. This information and a more detailed description have been added to the manuscript in the chapter "2.2 Data collection and research sample“, paragraph 4.

Has it been estimated what are the benefits of implementing the technology, e.g. in reducing construction costs or reducing or increasing the involvement of project participants related to the use of the system.

• Thank you for idea and suggestions, we agree, and it was done. Yes, the participants should also indicate the level of ICT use and quantify the impact on LCC and improve communication between participants in the construction project. This information and a more detailed description have been added to the manuscript in the chapter "2.2 Data collection and research sample“, paragraph 4.

 

Some remarks could be improve the quality of the paper:

Table 2. is in line 150 in line 238 should be table 3 not Figure 2

Line 360 should be table 4

Line 429 should be table 5

Line 456 should be table 6

• Thank you for the warning. Your proposed changes are of course, logical and have been modified in the manuscript.

Table line 238-239 such high accuracy is unnecessary, enough to be accurate to the tenth part

Table line 238-239 last line 21 years and more

Table line 238-239 last column Cumulative % Seems unnecessary I do not fully understand why it was added

• We agree that the cumulative column does not have significant informational value related to the substance of the research and therefore, according to your suggestion, this column has been deleted.

Table line 429 isn't it enough to write that everyone took part, is column Number of valid responses necessary

• After considering your comment and reassessing the real need to publish the information in the relevant table, we have concluded that the information we wished to provide in the relevant table is sufficient to provide the wording in the same section (under figure 2).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

It is well organized report based on  a questionnaire. However, the conclusions presented by the researchers can not be said to be academically or industrially significant.
The null hypothesis setting is so plain that it is a general perception even if it does not go through the questionnaire.
I think it would be appropriate to explore more concrete topics using the results of the survey.

To help with future modifications, add the following reviews:

1. A concise explanation of the results of the research shall be required;
2. The classification of each country in Table 1 is not connected to the contents of the main text;
3. Disconsistency in the use of terms (related to ICT) appears;
4. Correct the fault of the formula (related to x, Xi);
5.Error in Picture 2  modification necessary
6. Modification of Table 4 editing;
7. Inconsistency in statistics value(p=0.0245, 0.0476);

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate your opinion on the research results and we would like to thank you very much for the informative and valuable comments that allowed us to improve our manuscript. We have tried to incorporate all your comments and suggestions. All edits where your comments have been taken into account are highlighted in turquoise (other colours are comments from other reviewers). At the same time, we add a point-by-point explanation of how we did the changes:

 

1. A concise explanation of the results of the research shall be required;

• Thank you for your consideration. Based on the recommendations, the interpretation of the results was added to the results and discussion section. The conclusions also summarized and supplemented a list of the most important findings. - corrected

 

2. The classification of each country in Table 1 is not connected to the contents of the main text;

• After careful consideration, we conclude that information on the country where the previous and similar research was conducted does not provide significant information that would increase this research's informative value. (Except that research has already been conducted worldwide to address similar issues to some extent, but they did not quantify it, as this research does).  So the column was removed from the table - corrected

 

3. Disconsistency in the use of terms (related to ICT) appears;

• Based on the proposal, the terminology in the document was unified and used: information and communication technologies - these changes are highlighted in the document - corrected

 

4. Correct the fault of the formula (related to x, Xi);

• Corrected

5. Error in Picture 2  modification necessary

• Some errors were corrected in the picture.

 

6. Modification of Table 4 editing;

• One table was deleted from another reviewer's recommendation document. We have carefully considered the added information value in the manuscript and have concluded that we can summarize this information in the text.
• Table 5 (new numbering) was corrected

 

7. Inconsistency in statistics value(p=0.0245, 0.0476);

• Yes, the value of 0.0245 was incorrect. We made the change and adjusted it to an actual value 0.0476 that is the same as the value in the table.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The article discusses the implementation factors of information and communication technology in life cycle cost management of buildings and aims to analyze the implementation factors of information and communication technology in life cycle cost management of buildings. The research procedure is relatively simple, and the paper is well structured. It is a good effort to show something interesting, although I cannot clearly see what this paper adds to the existing knowledge. I think that this manuscript could be suitable for publication after fixing some issues that will strengthen its novelty. I hope that my comments and suggestions will be helpful:

• Check double space in line 30. Please check for similar mistakes all over the paper.
• Please present the full abbreviation at the first appearance of each one. For example, ICT in line 98 and SME in table 1, but there are more.
• In lines 218-219 you say that “The respondents' selection was random from the industry database”. Why is that? Shouldn’t be more accurate if there was a targeted selection of representatives of the country’s actual building industry? I.e. correct analogies between contractors, sub-contractors, investors etc.. For example, are the shares presented in Figure 2 (line 238), representative of the current situation?
• In lines 235-236 you say, “A more detailed specification of the research sample is in the next table (see Table 2)”. Do you mean “Figure 2”? Please clearly introduce a figure or a table in the text before showing it.
• What does Figure 1 (line 269) has to offer? It actually presents the usual methodological course of the vast majority of any research paper.
• Please connect your conclusion with the literature review. How does your work complement or disprove the work of other researchers in the field etc..
• In the conclusions, I would like to see a list with the main findings of this study. I see the effort to present an overview of the paper here but I am missing what is the main information that I get after reading this paper and what will probably make me to come back to read it again.
• The most important drawback is the fact that there is no clear novelty in this paper. Please discuss and clearly present the novelty of your work in the introduction.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate your opinion on the research results, and we would like to thank you very much for the informative and valuable comments that allowed us to improve our manuscript. We have tried to incorporate all your comments and suggestions. All edits where your comments have been taken into account are highlighted in green (other colours are comments from other reviewers). At the same time, we add a point-by-point explanation of how we did the changes:

 

Check double space in line 30. Please check for similar mistakes all over the paper.

• Thank you for the advice. In the document, we have achieved the required document modifications after using the function (find double spaces) and then using the functions "edit" and replace the character (double space for one).

Please present the full abbreviation at the first appearance of each one. For example, ICT in line 98 and SME in table 1, but there are more.

• The identified shortcomings mentioned for the first time were replaced by full word phrases and followed by this abbreviation.

In lines 218-219 you say that “The respondents' selection was random from the industry database”. Why is that? Shouldn’t be more accurate if there was a targeted selection of representatives of the country’s actual building industry? I.e. correct analogies between contractors, sub-contractors, investors etc.. For example, are the shares presented in Figure 2 (line 238), representative of the current situation?

• We apologize for the insufficient explanation of the sample selection. The database contained companies from the construction industry. The sample's selection reflected the composition of the construction companies in the market, but the selection itself from a specific target group was random. This statement and explanation was also given in the manuscript (2.2 Data collection and research sample – chapter).

In lines 235-236 you say, “A more detailed specification of the research sample is in the next table (see Table 2)”. Do you mean “Figure 2”? Please clearly introduce a figure or a table in the text before showing it.

• We apologize, but it was our mistake - wrong numbering made the wrong statement. This information, as well as the link, have been modified - corrected

What does Figure 1 (line 269) has to offer? It actually presents the usual methodological course of the vast majority of any research paper.

• We admit that after your proposal, we concluded that the picture is too general and does not contribute to a better clarification of the methodological procedure, so we decided to remove it - corrected

Please connect your conclusion with the literature review. How does your work complement or disprove the work of other researchers in the field etc..

• The conclusion was extended by confronting the results of previous or similar studies related to the topic. They were pointed out, and some claims were confirmed, while others did not confirm this research - corrected

In the conclusions, I would like to see a list with the main findings of this study. I see the effort to present an overview of the paper here but I am missing what is the main information that I get after reading this paper and what will probably make me to come back to read it again.

• The list with the main findings was added to the conclusion as proposed.

The most important drawback is the fact that there is no clear novelty in this paper. Please discuss and clearly present the novelty of your work in the introduction.

• The list with the main findings was added to the conclusion as proposed. The research quantified the importance of specific implementation factors for the adoption of ICT in life cycle cost management (this critical information for practice has not yet been mentioned in any research).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

A previous review suggested a professional translation, which, unfortunately, was not done.
A professional translation of this article is required. In Table 2, the descriptions of the factors are compiled in the expected way, but even here the poor quality of English language reduces the intelligibility. There is still a lack of clear and precise methodological descriptions of the procedures carried out. The added description in the Introduction is not enough. The methodological procedure is extensively described without a clear structure of the respondents, without any numbers relating to the structure of the respondents, without description of applied scientific method . Answers to the Substantive deficiencies are not acceptable. From my point of view, the corrections given are not enough.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you again for the valuable advice and comments on improving our manuscript and for making our research more valuable. We have taken your comments into account and tried to incorporate them all into the manuscript. Here are the changes we made:

• The entire manuscript has undergone a professional language translation of MDPI with certificate, which significantly changed the level of English in the paper. We believe that many parts are now clearer and clearer to understand.
• Information was added to clarify the methodological procedure and description of research steps (chapter 2.1Research methods and steps); also, tools and data source, as well as processing methods, were identified and named (Table 3)
• The structure of the respondents and the clarification of the sample selection were also described in more detail
• The main conclusions of the research have been added to the review points

Content changes are highlighted in yellow, changes in translation can be tracked based on the change tracking feature.

Thank you again for your time and valuable advice.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The minor parts have been improved; however, as noted in the previous review, the paper has a clear limitation as an academic paper as it is now.
Based on the results of the survey, it is thought that a more solid theme should be selected and researched.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you again for the valuable advice and comments on improving our manuscript and for making our research more valuable. We have taken your comments into account and tried to incorporate them all into the manuscript. Here are the changes we made:

• The entire manuscript has undergone a professional language translation of MDPI with certificate, which significantly changed the level of English in the paper. We believe that many parts are now clearer and clearer to understand.
• Information was added to clarify the methodological procedure and description of research steps (chapter 2.1Research methods and steps); also, tools and data source, as well as processing methods, were identified and named (Table 3).
• The structure of the respondents and the clarification of the sample selection were also described in more detail
• The main conclusions of the research have been added to the review points
• Content changes are highlighted in yellow, changes in translation can be tracked based on the change tracking feature.

Thank you again for your time and valuable advice.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

In lines 520-530 you added a list with the main findings of this study. The last one starts with a capital letter, whilst the others don't. Please use the same approach with all the items of the list. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you again for the valuable advice and comments on improving our manuscript and for making our research more valuable. We have taken your comments into account and tried to incorporate them all into the manuscript. Here are the changes we made:

• We have adjusted lines 520-530 (currently a different line numbering) according to your instructions.
• The entire manuscript has undergone a professional language translation of MDPI (in the appendix, we also enclose a certificate), which significantly changed the level of English in the paper. We believe that many parts are now clearer and clearer to understand.
• Information was added to clarify the methodological procedure and description of research steps (chapter 2.1Research methods and steps); also, tools and data source, as well as processing methods, were identified and named (Table 3).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The professional translation of the article has greatly improved its readability and quality. The authors must follow the instructions of the language reviewer, in the sense of avoiding repetition in places where it is requested and to check the meaning of the marked sentences after the translation. Any new text added should be submitted for language testing.

In Chapter 2.1 Research aim and hypothesis it is necessary to separate the introductory part from the research goal and research hypothesis. The introductory part is too long and repeats some earlier mentioned statements. It has to be shortened. 

In Chapter 2.4  it is not necessary to repeat research steps. The title should be Data Processing. It is recommended to avoid repeating.
 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much again for your valuable comments for improving research. Based on these tips and comments, we have made the following adjustments:

Q:The professional translation of the article has greatly improved its readability and quality. The authors must follow the instructions of the language reviewer, in the sense of avoiding repetition in places where it is requested and to check the meaning of the marked sentences after the translation. Any new text added should be submitted for language testing.

• The meaning of the sentences after the adjustment was checked. Duplicate texts have also been removed, as suggested by the English proofreading. Language experts consulted all adjustments. 

In Chapter 2.2 Research aim and hypothesis it is necessary to separate the introductory part from the research goal and research hypothesis. The introductory part is too long and repeats some earlier mentioned statements. It has to be shortened. 

• In chapter 2.2 Research aim and hypothesis, the introductory part to the research and hypothesis was separated. The introductory part has also been shortened, as in the comment. These changes are highlighted in the text.

In Chapter 2.4  it is not necessary to repeat research steps. The title should be Data Processing. It is recommended to avoid repeating.

• We renamed chapter 2.4 to Data processing. Part - research steps have been removed to avoid duplication. These changes are highlighted in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx