Construction Site Utilization Planning: A Process Based upon Industry Best Practices

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting field of research, and I will agree with the authors that site layout planning has major implications on project's safety, productivity and thus scheduling and cost.

In my opinion, this research as presented needs major modifications in order to be acceptable for publication.

My major concerns are the followings:

1. There should be conducted a more in depth literature review, as in its current form seems to me rough. In the introduction section it is mentioned that a state-of-the-practice regarding construction site utilization planning is one of the main targets of this study, without an in depth literature review how can this be possible? There is a lot of bibliography on this intriguing subject and more recent! For example: "Dynamic planning of Construction Site for Linear Projects", 2021, Infrarstructures, "Dynamic facilities planning model for large scale construction projects", 2019, Automation in Construction, "Current trends in construction layout planning", 2014, ASCE Proceedings, "A BIM based construction site layout planning framework considering actual travel paths", 2014, Symposium in Automation and Construction Sydney and so on...
2. There is a major mistake in the wording when referring to project life cycle which includes construction and operation. There should be a distinction between construction period and operation period. Site layout planning is referred to construction period, so the authors should  revise.
3. In section 3.2.3, which is a section of importance, there is only one reference [6] and this of 2008! 
4. Lines 193-194: Please explain in more detail how and which TF can significantly affect productivity?
5. I strongly believe that plants such concrete plants and aggregates plants are part of all sites when considering infrastructure projects; there is no reference to these site facilities. If the authors want to exclude them then they should mention it. 
6. In line 239, TF are mentioned in full context, it should be corrected.
7. The results would be better presented accompanied with graphic representations!
8. In the discussion section, I believe that among the 13 best practices presented is missing a very important one, that of Time and the evolution of site layout planning according it. Technology of BIM, the 4th dimension tries to incorporate time which is very important and determines dynamic site layout planning.

Author Response

The authors greatly appreciate the comments provided by all reviewers of this paper.  This review has provided valuable insight improving the overall quality of the paper.  All comments have been addressed and responses to individual comments are provided below.  Track Changes was used to highlight edits made within the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Whiteman, J. B, et al. submitted an interesting study on construction site utilization planning using a survey-based approach. This paper needs considerable work before it can be considered for publication.  The authors are recommended to revise the paper based on the following comments.

General Comments:

1. Keywords need to be more specific. Do not use the words you already mentioned in the title.
2. This paper should be structured well and ensure a better flow of ideas.
3. Insert more references where necessary

This paper can be considered for publication after addressing the following specific comments.

1. Introduction
   1. This section needs substantial rewriting, which requires the need of this research, research gap in terms of current knowledge, and the beneficiaries of this research.
   2. Use a separate literature review section to indicate literature and summarize the knowledge gap and the need for this study in this section.
   3. What is the novel in what you are doing? What is the scientific contribution of the paper? Please explain clearly.
   4. Who are the potential beneficiaries of this study? Indicate the target beneficiaries at the end of this section.
2. Methodology
   1. The goal / objective of this research should be stated clearly.
   2. The methodology section needs to be rewrite and structure properly with complete details in order to ensure the reproducibility of this research content. In that case, the methodology section needs to be structured well, which is very important for the reader to understand the proposed research and to interpret your contribution to the existing knowledge.
   3. The survey data were collected from different industry-experts. The knowledge of their expertise might be varied based on their previous experiences. Therefore, the generalizability of the applied method and obtained results are questionable due to the subjective nature of the given weights. If you can give different weightage to subject experts based on their experiences on each practice may enhance the generalizability of the obtained results.
   4. Recommend using a framework to show your methodology and the way your collected data is processed to derive the mentioned results.
3. Results
   1. Avoid redundancies in this part and use some of the content in the methodology. (Specifically, the survey methodology can be shown in the methodology section. No point of showing them in the result section)
4. Discussion
   1. Discuss the generalizability and reproducibility of these research findings for similar applications in other countries.
   2. The limitations and the future research potential of this study should be indicated at the end of the discussion section.

Author Response

The authors greatly appreciate the comments provided by all reviewers of this paper.  This review has provided valuable insight improving the overall quality of the paper.  All comments have been addressed and responses to individual comments are provided below.  Track Changes was used to highlight edits made within the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

My previous comments are properly addressed. 

But I would like to include in your literature review also the following articles which address some very innovative and new trends in the area of construction sites management:

1. "Dynamic planning of Construction Site for Linear Projects", 2021. This work studies for the first time the dynamic planning of the whole site for linear projects.
2. ""Dynamic facilities planning model of large scale construction projects", 2019. This research gives a holistic view on the matter.

Author Response

The authors have incorporated the recommended articles into the Literature Review.  The authors greatly appreciate the time devoted to reviewing this manuscript.  Thank you for helping us improve the quality of the article.

Reviewer 2 Report

I have no further comments and the paper can be published in the journal of Civil Engineering. Recommend to do a language review. 

Author Response

The authors greatly appreciate the time devoted to reviewing this manuscript.  Thank you for helping us improve the quality of the article.