Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall it is a well-presented paper with interesting results. They conducted a collaborative study with a design thinking approach to explore how to make a building smart. So far smart building has not been well defined from stakeholders' perspective. There is limited research that has been done to include occupants' opinions in the design. Therefore the contribution of this paper is clear and meaningful. 

Only a minor suggestion:

in the methodology section, Table 1 can be explained better with more detailed information to understand how exactly the research has been conducted. For example, whether the types of stakeholders in focus group 1 are similar or the same in focus group 2. Do all stakeholders involved in the Probes survey? how about stakeholders in interviews? How the data in probes be used in the interviews? what about the 7 interviews without probes data?

Author Response

Thank you for the valuable comment to improve the paper.  As an response for that: We have extended the description of the research methods in Section 3, especially regarding the empathize phase. We now give more details of the building stakeholders and how they were involved in the focus groups, interviews and probes.   

Please see the attachment for more detail response (including also changes we made based on the comments of the another reviewer)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The title is misleading. The actual paper starts on line 356 results and all what is needed from the previous research can be reorganized. All text as is co go to the supportive review document and only one page called preparation to the the survey placed in the paper. The paper should indicate that it includes results of survey on expectation for the next generation of smart buildings. 

PS. Even in the supporting material if Figure 2 is enclosed it must be readable

Author Response

Thank you for valuable comments to improve our paper. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

OK