Challenges of Digital Building Data Usage with a Focus on the Digital Documentation of Heritage Buildings—Results from an Online Survey

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper shows the results of a survey designed to mainly explore issues concerning data interoperability and longevity in the BIM and HBIM sectors, trying to establish a comparison between both.

The approach is good, the survey is well structured, and the number of participants is significant. However, there is some  

inconsistency between what is said to be done and what is analysed. For example, lines 257-258 state that the effects on the digital documentation of heritage buildings will be quantified, and this premise is blurred throughout the paper. 

The same goes for the eight objectives of the methodology. Neither the discussion nor the conclusions show whether they have been achieved.

The structure of the results section is clear, and the use of tables and figures is appropriate. However, it is not sometimes evident what the percentage refers to, and it seems that concepts are mixed up, which may lead to confusion for the reader (Fig. 10, lines 443-450, 516-522 or 530, for instance).

We suggest avoiding terms like "some" or "many" in point 3.4.5 and giving the number of participants.

Regarding the Discussion part, it sometimes seems to be a repetition of what has already been said in the Results section, and there is no confrontation with the outcomes of similar studies.

The conclusions are few and insignificant.

The whole References section needs to be corrected to adapt them to the journal format. 

Minor spell check required (e.g. lines 132, 484, 645)

Author Response

Revision report

Reviewer 1

This paper shows the results of a survey designed to mainly explore issues concerning data interoperability and longevity in the BIM and HBIM sectors, trying to establish a comparison between both.

1. The approach is good, the survey is well structured, and the number of participants is significant. However, there is some inconsistency between what is said to be done and what is analysed. For example, lines 257-258 state that the effects on the digital documentation of heritage buildings will be quantified, and this premise is blurred throughout the paper. The same goes for the eight objectives of the methodology. Neither the discussion nor the conclusions show whether they have been achieved.
   • The discussion section was revised and re-arranged to relate the data analysis to the research aims and objectives.

2. The structure of the results section is clear, and the use of tables and figures is appropriate. However, it is not sometimes evident what the percentage refers to, and it seems that concepts are mixed up, which may lead to confusion for the reader (Fig. 10, lines 443-450, 516-522 or 530, for instance).
   • The percentages and the descriptions were revised to make sure they are clear and consistent with the graphs.

3. We suggest avoiding terms like "some" or "many" in point 3.4.5 and giving the number of participants.
   • The numbers of participants were added in the discussion.

4. Regarding the Discussion part, it sometimes seems to be a repetition of what has already been said in the Results section, and there is no confrontation with the outcomes of similar studies.
   • The discussion is analysing the results and relating them to the research objectives.
   • Similar studies that took the same approach could not be found, therefore, it was not possible to compare the results to previous results.
   • The discussion section was rearranged into topics to clarify it and relate it to the objectives of the research.

5. The conclusions are few and insignificant.
   • The main results were discussed and highlighted in the discussion section.
   • A conclusion section was added to summarise the outcome of the research.

6. The whole References section needs to be corrected to adapt them to the journal format.
   • All the references were revised according to the journal format.

7. Minor spell check required (e.g. lines 132, 484, 645)
   • Spelling errors were corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, a multi-level comparison of the needs of experts from AEC industries and the heritage sector was made. An online survey was conducted on 114 respondents. The participants were divided into experts from the heritage sector and from AEC, and on the other hand, BIM and non-BIM experts. In terms of research interests, participants had the following interests: history/archaeology, geometry/survey/modelling, education/public dissemination, design, conservation, engineering/sustainability, construction and management.

Four areas are analyzed and examined here:

1.       longevity of data and the possibilities and problems that arise when storing data

2.       BIM interoperability issues and challenges including assessing the efficiency of standardized BIM solution

3.       exploring challenges of the digital documentation of heritage buildings

4.       investigation of benefits of BIM in the digital documentation of heritage buildings

Eight goals were identified for the realization of the listed areas:

1.       an assessment of the AEC industry and the heritage building sector for long-term data storage

2.       exploring interoperability of BIM data

3.       exploring of extent usage of standardized BIM formats

4.       Comparing BIM usage between heritage and AEC professionals

5.       evaluating the necessity for interdisciplinarity and interoperability between different disciplines involved in the digital documentation of heritage buildings

6.       Examining the need for engagement of experts from different disciplines to access different types of data

7.       Assessing the use of BIM for all disciplines in the heritage building sector

8.       Assessment of the application of BIM as a tool for digital documentation of heritage objects

The research is extensive, the results are presented in percentages in tables and diagrams and represent the current situation in this area based on 114 respondents.

Taking into account the relatively small number of respondents, I think that this research still cannot provide a sufficiently high-quality answer, what are the tendencies around the questions asked. It would also be good to indicate whether the respondents are from one university or from one country, because perhaps different tendencies in the answers can be expected at other universities or countries.

On page 14, an error is shown because the reference is missing and the text should be checked because there are minor typographical errors.

I recommend to the editors that the paper be accepted for publication with minor changes.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Revision report

Reviewer 2

The research is extensive, the results are presented in percentages in tables and diagrams and represent the current situation in this area based on 114 respondents.

1. Taking into account the relatively small number of respondents, I think that this research still cannot provide a sufficiently high-quality answer, what are the tendencies around the questions asked. It would also be good to indicate whether the respondents are from one university or from one country, because perhaps different tendencies in the answers can be expected at other universities or countries.
   • The paper is not aiming for a detailed statistical answer, but rather to explore the topics discussed in a broad sense and explore the tendencies of different sectors and various disciplines.
   • A reassuring factor is that the responses' tendencies didn’t drastically change since the number of responses received was 50 up to the writing of this paper, which makes the authors believe that these responses - even in low number - are somehow reasonable indications about the situation in the AEC industry and the heritage sector.
   • The questionnaire was not restricted to one university or one country, as the topic is a universal issue that affects anyone working in the digital AEC and heritage industries.
   • A detailed description about how the participants were recruited was added to the methodology section.

2. On page 14, an error is shown because the reference is missing and the text should be checked because there are minor typographical errors.
   • Missing reference corrected.
   • The text was revised and corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents extensive results of an online survey that investigates the challenges of data longevity and data interoperability, with a particular focus on digital documentation of heritage buildings. In terms of language, the article is written in a clear and academic prose throughout, having a good sense of audience.

When compared to the paper’s contribution, the paper is considered very lengthy, as several parts could be merged or removed. A clear research question is somehow missing in the abstract and the introduction.

Section 1 should be as an ‘Introduction’ where the topic is introduced, and problem statement, research question and concise methodology are presented. But authors included several topics that could have been presented in a separate section (i.e., Related Work). For instance, the main standardized BIM format (P.3 – P.5) should not appear concisely in that section; perhaps only in a table that compares among them in terms of longevity and interoperability.

The online survey is well-explained in the Methodology Section, but the way how the survey was distributed is not mentioned (e.g., how did authors get the list of experts? how did authors approach experts? Where do experts ‘geographically’ work? Etc.). Also, a brief explanation about the data analysis is missing in the Methodology section (e.g., which software? Statistical / thematic analysis? Etc.)

The Results section is extremely verbose, including details that can be presented briefly or completely taken out (e.g., Figure 19 in P.20, Figures 28-32, Table 7, etc.)

The Discussion section gives an interesting summary of the results. However, it should be framed as sub-headings to highlight the most interesting themes of the results, including more in-depth arguments and possibly considerations/recommendations.

Minor mistakes (L. 470: duplication of the word ‘represents’, L. 495: Reference error).

Author Response

Revision report

Reviewer 3

The paper presents extensive results of an online survey that investigates the challenges of data longevity and data interoperability, with a particular focus on digital documentation of heritage buildings. In terms of language, the article is written in a clear and academic prose throughout, having a good sense of audience.

1. When compared to the paper’s contribution, the paper is considered very lengthy, as several parts could be merged or removed.
   • The paper tries to present all data from the survey conducted.
   • The results section tries to present the main results, while the discussion section tries to analyse and summarise the most significant results.
   • It is difficult to merge survey data that cannot be directly merged, hence the length of the paper.

2. A clear research question is somehow missing in the abstract and the introduction. Section1 should be as an ‘Introduction’ where the topic is introduced, and problem statement, research question and concise methodology are presented. But authors included several topics that could have been presented in a separate section (i.e., Related Work). For instance, the main standardized BIM format (P.3 – P.5) should not appear concisely in that section; perhaps only in a table that compares among them in terms of longevity and interoperability.
   • An introduction section was added including summary about the problem statement, research question, and methodology

3. The online survey is well-explained in the Methodology Section, but the way how the survey was distributed is not mentioned (e.g., how did authors get the list of experts? how did authors approach experts? Where do experts ‘geographically’ work? Etc.). Also, a brief explanation about the data analysis is missing in the Methodology section (e.g., which software? Statistical / thematic analysis? Etc.)
   • Details about invitations to the questionnaire and data analysis were added to the methodology section

4. The Results section is extremely verbose, including details that can be presented briefly or completely taken out (e.g., Figure 19 in P.20, Figures 28-32, Table 7, etc.)
   • The authors tried to present as much as possible of the survey outcome in the results section, while a more focussed analysis takes place in the discussion section. For the sake of integrity and credibility of the paper, the graphs represent many details from the responses' data, however, only the main numbers were mentioned in the text, and only significant trends were discussed in the discussion section.
   • It was hard to avoid lengthening the paper while discussing all the important aspects.

5. The Discussion section gives an interesting summary of the results. However, it should be framed as sub-headings to highlight the most interesting themes of the results, including more in-depth arguments and possibly considerations/recommendations.
   • The discussion section was rearranged into topics to clarify it and to relate it to the objectives of the research.
   • A conclusion section was added.

6. Minor mistakes (L. 470: duplication of the word ‘represents’, L. 495: Reference error).
   • Spelling errors were checked and corrected.
   • Reference error was corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think the changes make the paper more balanced in terms of content. 

However, the same doubts remain about some percentages, especially when asking all participants (BIM and non-BIM) about issues related to BIM data. For example, Figure 10 and lines 478-481 treat "re-accessibility to BIM data". That "about 44%" that have experienced problems accessing older BIM data refers to the total number of participants, as understood by the wording of that sentence. That is to say, that percentage includes non-BIM participants (44.6%). I think this may lead to a misinterpretation of the magnitude of percentages. Non-BIM participants haven't problems with re-accessibility because they don't use BIM. In fact, 44% tell us that, among BIM participants, almost 3/4 have had issues accessing this type of data, which is quite significant.

If this is not the case, please rephrase this type of sentence because its wording is unclear. Please, check if it happens again throughout the paper.

Correct "Error" in line 273-274 and reference n. 27. Check the wording in line 406 ff.

Author Response

Revision report

Reviewer 1

I think the changes make the paper more balanced in terms of content.

1. However, the same doubts remain about some percentages, especially when asking all participants (BIM and non-BIM) about issues related to BIM data. For example, Figure 10 and lines 478-481 treat "re-accessibility to BIM data". That "about 44%" that have experienced problems accessing older BIM data refers to the total number of participants, as understood by the wording of that sentence. That is to say, that percentage includes non-BIM participants (44.6%). I think this may lead to a misinterpretation of the magnitude of percentages. Non-BIM participants haven't problems with re-accessibility because they don't use BIM. In fact, 44% tell us that, among BIM participants, almost 3/4 have had issues accessing this type of data, which is quite significant.

If this is not the case, please rephrase this type of sentence because its wording is unclear. Please, check if it happens again throughout the paper.

• As all participants were identified based on their answers and put in relevant groups, it was possible to ask specific questions to specific groups. Thus, questions related to BIM issues were asked only to participants who were identified as BIM users. Questions on standardised BIM formats were only asked to participants who had said they use such formats. Heritage related questions were only asked to participants who had identified as ones working in the heritage field.
• The only exception to the above was for the opinion questions, as these were asked to all participants since the views of all of them were sought, in order to get views from different perspectives.
• In order to eliminate potential confusion, the text has been revised throughout and relevant terms such as 'all participants', 'BIM participants', 'Non-BIM participants', as well as other group identifying terms were used

2. Correct "Error" in line 273-274 and reference n. 27. Check the wording in line 406 ff.

• Corrected.

• One new response to the questionnaire was received during the revision of the paper, therefore all the graphs and percentages were updated accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Most of the comments are considered in the revised version. Many thanks to authors for their response. Yet, the paper is too length compared to its contribution!

Author Response

Revision report

Reviewer 3

Most of the comments are considered in the revised version. Many thanks to authors for their response. Yet, the paper is too length compared to its contribution!

• The authors have tried a lot to shorten the paper as much as possible, but considering that the questionnaire included 44 quantitative and qualitative questions and the authors wanted to show all results, it was not possible to shorten it even more.
• One new response to the questionnaire was received during the revision of the paper, therefore, all the graphs and percentages were updated accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx