Lean Thinking and Industrial 4.0 Approach to Achieving Construction 4.0 for Industrialization and Technological Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Through a sampling method for collecting data, and a structured questionnaire distributed to 100 professionals, the study attempts ad evolving an enhanced approach to improve construction process and resources management by application of lean construction and industry 4.0.

Finally, the study suggests the application of hybrid model recommended as guide to deployment of an application that could help in industrial productivity.

The question in well defined, some points of view are original, and the results are very interesting.

The article is written in an appropriate way, and the numerous data are analyzed and presented appropriately, and robust enough to draw the conclusions, that are interesting for the readership of the Journal.

It is possible to assert that the article, written with an English language understandable, provide an advance towards the current knowledge about this topic.

On the one hand the study seems very extensive and the data well organized, but on the other hand the discussion is too short and would be desirable indications for future implementations in the construction sector.

Author Response

Kindly see the attached

Many thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors of the article set ambitious goals for themselves. I find the very idea of research interesting and necessary. However, I note some serious mistakes in the article.

Firstly, the authors set 7 goals and made the task more difficult for themselves. I believe that the questions / goals were not answered in the article. The authors focused on the technical side of the study by performing many statistical trials and tests, and they forgot about the questions they asked. The part related to the discussion of research results should be dominant, while the Discussion chapter contains only 19 lines.

The authors focused on the uncritical presentation of the test results, e.g. Cronbach Alpha Test, Man-Whitney U Test, Wilcoxon-W test etc. forgetting to analyze the results and explain them to the reader.

At the beginning of Chapter 3, Materials and Methods, the authors stated that they had conducted research among Production managers, Production supervisors, Quality control officers and Information communication officers without providing more information. Only at the end you can find out that the questionnaires were sent to 80 managers and supervisors and officers. Chapter 4 reads "Thirty (30) production supervisor are engaged, thirty (30) production managers, forty (40) quality control officer", which gives 100 people, as confirmed in Chapter 4.2. Generally, a research sample, its scope should be clearly defined and described at the beginning of chapter 3.

I suggest analyzing the text by the authors, changing the structure of the paiper so that it corresponds to the set goals, and not subsequent tests carried out on the basis of the survey. Each subsequent subsection corresponding to the purpose set by the authors should end with partial conclusions.
You should definitely abandon the mere reporting of test results, and add descriptions explaining the results presented in relation to the target.
Authors should expand the discussion section as the most essential part of this article. There is definitely no discussion of the results obtained.

Author Response

Kindly refer to the attached

Many thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

The comments and suggestions for the authors are in the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Kindly refer to the attachment for detail

Many thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors made the necessary corrections to the text. As I wrote before, the article is on the border of sociological and engineering sciences, but in my opinion it is suitable for publication and meets the scientific requirements.

Author Response

Kindly refer to the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.