A WCA-Based Evaluation Approach for Matching Analysis of the Construction Process

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper looks interesting and provides interesting findings. Please revise the paper according to the below comments:

The introduction lacks specific examples of PMD's real-world impact. Including case studies where quantitative assessment methods have improved efficiency or reduced costs would strengthen the argument. Can the authors provide examples of projects benefiting from similar methods?

Please clarify the criteria and data used to determine and adjust the weight values. How were expert opinions incorporated into this process?

Consider expanding your literature review to cover a broader range of literature. For example, when discussing energy-efficient and low-carbon buildings, explore papers that have utilized BIM (as discussed in Section 2.2) in these areas, such as "A BIM-based framework for optimization and assessment of buildings' cost and carbon emissions." Or when discussing safety consider “A blockchain information management framework for construction safety”

Using a single case study limits the generalizability of the findings. A comparative analysis with multiple projects would provide broader validation. How will you ensure PMD's applicability across diverse construction projects?

The integration of PMD evaluation with BIM software needs further elaboration. Detail how the BIM model facilitates PMD calculation and any challenges faced. Are there limitations in using BIM for this purpose?

 

The discussion mentions limitations like insufficient case validation and indicator optimization only briefly. These issues need deeper exploration to improve PMD's reliability. What specific steps will future research take to address these limitations?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Needs minor editing

Author Response

Comments 1: The introduction lacks specific examples of PMD's real-world impact. Including case studies where quantitative assessment methods have improved efficiency or reduced costs would strengthen the argument. Can the authors provide examples of projects benefiting from similar methods? 

Response 1： Thank you again for your comments, your suggestions are very valuable to us. We have searched and found that some researchers have indeed conducted research on process matching and quantitative research on processes, e.g., Ioannou et al. proposed the “matched pairs” method, which can increase construction efficiency from 55% to 95%, demonstrating the practical value of quantitative research on construction processes. This part of the paper has been improved in the introduction of the new manuscript and is marked in red text.

Comments 2: Please clarify the criteria and data used to determine and adjust the weight values. How were expert opinions incorporated into this process?

Response 2：Thank you again for your comments, We consulted some experts in the preliminary study, in order to determine and adjust the weight values, we supplemented the research by setting 4 basic questions, 9 questions matching the construction process, 20 questionnaires were returned, based on the content of the questionnaires we determined the weight values of the influencing factors, the questionnaires of the research and the questionnaire report are supplemented in Appendix A. Additional refinement, in order to explain How the expert opinions incorporated into this process, we have added a description of the researched expert opinion in the methodology and modified the flowchart of the methodology, as detailed in the text labeled in red in the methodology in the new manuscript.

Comments 3: Consider expanding your literature review to cover a broader range of literature. For example, when discussing energy-efficient and low-carbon buildings, explore papers that have utilized BIM (as discussed in Section 2.2) in these areas, such as "A BIM-based framework for optimization and assessment of buildings' cost and carbon emissions." Or when discussing safety consider “A blockchain information management framework for construction safety”.

Response 3：Thank you for your comments. I have expanded the literature review to cover a broader range of literature as suggested. Specifically, I have included the papers "A BIM-based framework for optimization and assessment of buildings' cost and carbon emissions" and "A blockchain information management framework for construction safety" to enhance the discussion on energy-efficient, low-carbon buildings, and construction safety. Additionally, other relevant literature has been incorporated to further strengthen the review. The relevant sections have been updated with these references, marked by red-text in the new version manuscript.

Comments 4: Using a single case study limits the generalizability of the findings. A comparative analysis with multiple projects would provide broader validation. How will you ensure PMD's applicability across diverse construction projects?

Response 4：Thank you for your comments, although we only have one case as a research object, we have studied the case more thoroughly and collected a large amount of information and data, including the refined BIM model, records of the construction process, and simulation of the construction process, which provide support for the establishment of PMD evaluation indicators. Indeed, there are limitations in one case, but due to the limitations of the research team's ability, we are not able to provide a study of multiple case comparisons at this time, but we will continue to expand the number of PMD validation cases in subsequent studies to improve the accuracy of PMD evaluation.

Comments 5: The integration of PMD evaluation with BIM software needs further elaboration. Detail how the BIM model facilitates PMD calculation and any challenges faced. Are there limitations in using BIM for this purpose?

Response 5：Thank you for your comments, they are very valuable to us, when we conducted the literature review, a large number of researchers focus on the application of BIM technology in the construction process, the purpose of proposing PMD for the evaluation of the construction process is that we would like to evaluate the construction process through quantitative indicators, and BIM is one of the indispensable tools, BIM modeling has the following two significance for the calculation of PMD: 1) PMD can be used to evaluate the construction process based on BIM Construction process simulation for evaluation, the traditional management of the construction process intelligence through the time dimension based Gantt chart expression, can not quantitatively assess the differences of specific processes, PMD to make up for this problem, can be real-time refinement of the indicators to evaluate and correct the differences in the construction process, to enhance the construction efficiency and reduce the cost of the important value; 2) the construction process of the building is the process of assembly of the component, PMD will be components as one of the evaluation indexes, the purpose is to provide support for the realization of PMD evaluation of components through BIM, and to realize the automatic and real-time evaluation of PMD by establishing the BIM model of components. There are still limitations in evaluating PMD through BIM, and the large deviation between the construction process simulated in BIM and the complex and changing actual construction process poses a challenge for PMD evaluation. In our subsequent research, we will combine field data acquisition and analysis techniques, such as applying image-to-model or 3D laser scanning, to realize field data acquisition and comparison with BIM process models to achieve PMD evaluation of simulated and constructed processes. We have adjusted the content in the conclusion and future outlook, as detailed in the new manuscript, in the red text marking section of the conclusion and future outlook section.

Comments 6: The discussion mentions limitations like insufficient case validation and indicator optimization only briefly. These issues need deeper exploration to improve PMD's reliability. What specific steps will future research take to address these limitations?

Response 6：Thank you for your comments. To address your concerns regarding the limitations mentioned in the discussion, we acknowledge the need for deeper exploration and specific steps to enhance PMD's reliability. Here is how we plan to address these limitations in future research:

• Insufficient Case Validation: We agree that relying on a single case study is a limitation. Future research will involve conducting multiple case studies across various types of construction projects. This approach will help to validate the applicability of PMD in different contexts and ensure that the findings are generalizable. By examining a broader range of projects, we aim to establish a more robust understanding of how PMD can be applied to enhance sustainability in construction.
• Indicator Optimization: To improve the optimization of PMD indicators, we plan to develop a systematic methodology for reverse optimization. This will involve collecting empirical data from additional case studies and using this data to refine the indicators and their weights. Our goal is to create a dynamic and adaptable PMD framework that can be continuously improved based on real-world applications. This iterative process will help to enhance the precision and operability of PMD indicators, ultimately leading to better construction and management efficiency.

We hope these steps address your concerns and demonstrate our commitment to advancing the reliability and applicability of PMD in construction management and sustainability, At the same time, we have revised and strengthened the discussion section. Please refer to the red-marked parts in the discussion section of the new manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for interesting and useful theme choice.

Comments:

1) In Abstract you have stated: “Initially, we assigned equal weight values of 0.2 to each using the Weighted Criteria Approach (WCA), adjusting these weights based on feedback during the evaluation process.” Could you be more specific how were these weights adjusted.

2) In Abstract you have stated: “2) it verifies the feasibility of PMD through case studies, providing a PMD research methodology based on WCA.” However, in the paper you have used just one case study, which is a very simple and small structure. How are you justifying validity of proposed method for construction industry based on such case study choice?

3) The section 2 primarily describes existing methods without sufficiently comparing them to the current study's methodology. This makes it unclear how the current work stands out or adds to the existing body of knowledge. Consider including a comparative analysis that highlights the strengths and weaknesses of existing methods and explicitly states how the proposed PMD methodology addresses these weaknesses or builds on these strengths.

4) The PMD value for the real deconstruction and simulation processes was 68 points, while for the real reconstruction and simulation processes it was 58 points. Could you please explain the reasons for this difference?

5) In discussion section you have indicated that there are 3 limitations but have brought out 2. Could you also explain if and how your method can be applied to other construction types for example wood prefab and regular in situ construction in addition to light steel structure.

6) By my opinion Figures 7 and 8 do not add any value to this paper. Please justify the use of them if you want to keep these.

7) The methods section, while detailed, could benefit from additional clarity, particularly in explaining the step-by-step process of the WCA and the scoring system for the PMD.

8) Minor editing comments: some repetitions in the text, reference to table 2 is missing in the text.

Author Response

Comments 1: In Abstract you have stated: “Initially, we assigned equal weight values of 0.2 to each using the Weighted Criteria Approach (WCA), adjusting these weights based on feedback during the evaluation process.”Could you be more specific how were these weights adjusted. 

Response 1：Thank you for your comments. Regarding the question on how the weights were adjusted during the evaluation process, we conducted a questionnaire survey and collected 20 responses from experts. Based on the results of the questionnaire, we found that the scoring for each evaluation item was generally consistent with the weights derived from the survey. Therefore, we initially assigned an equal weight value of 0.2 to each criterion. However, we plan to optimize and adjust these weights in future project validations. For more details on the questionnaire content, please refer to Appendix A.

Comments 2: In Abstract you have stated: “2) it verifies the feasibility of PMD through case studies, providing a PMD research methodology based on WCA.” However, in the paper you have used just one case study, which is a very simple and small structure. How are you justifying validity of proposed method for construction industry based on such case study choice?

Response 2：Thank you for your comments. Regarding your concern about the use of a single case study to justify the validity of the proposed PMD method for the construction industry:

PMD is proposed as a method to evaluate construction processes, encompassing both simulated and actual construction sequences. Our evaluation logic is based on the assembly process of components. The goal of PMD is to provide a quantitative evaluation method that can be applied to any construction project. While it is true that our current research is based on a single project, due to limitations in the availability of multiple case studies, we believe this initial case study is valuable.

Although the project structure and content are relatively simple, we created a detailed BIM model and collected comprehensive data on the deconstruction and reconstruction processes to analyze the feasibility of the PMD indicators. This detailed approach provides a solid foundation for the initial validation of our methodology. However, we acknowledge that further validation is needed. In future research, we will apply the PMD methodology to new projects to further verify its operability and practicality.

Comments 3: The section 2 primarily describes existing methods without sufficiently comparing them to the current study's methodology. This makes it unclear how the current work stands out or adds to the existing body of knowledge. Consider including a comparative analysis that highlights the strengths and weaknesses of existing methods and explicitly states how the proposed PMD methodology addresses these weaknesses or builds on these strengths.

Response 3：Thank you for your comments. Section 2 is the literature review where we summarize existing methods. These methods informed our decision to use WCA as the primary approach to establish the PMD methodology. As you correctly pointed out, it is important to highlight our innovation in using this method.

The primary advantage of WCA and similar methods is the inclusion of expert judgment, which we leveraged to develop the PMD methodology. While PMD may have certain limitations, we addressed these through surveys, case analyses, and other methods to enhance the robustness of the PMD indicators.

To clarify the comparative analysis between existing methods and our proposed methodology, we have revised the manuscript to explicitly state how our approach builds on the strengths and addresses the weaknesses of existing methods. Please refer to the red-marked sections in Section 2 of the revised manuscript for detailed comparisons and enhancements.

Comments 4: The PMD value for the real deconstruction and simulation processes was 68 points, while for the real reconstruction and simulation processes it was 58 points. Could you please explain the reasons for this difference?

Response 4：Thank you for your comments. The difference in PMD values between the real deconstruction and simulation processes (68 points) and the real reconstruction and simulation processes (58 points) can be explained by analyzing the stability changes in the beam components during these processes.

Upon analyzing the column, purlin, roof panel, and eave board components, we obtained the following scores:

Regulations: Specifications (40), Eco Requirements (35), Other Regulations (25) - Total: 100

Environment: Geographic Conditions (25), Spatial Limitations (50), Other Limitations (25) - Total: 100

Equipment: Lifting Machinery (50), Construction Machinery (25), Construction Tools (25) - Total: 100

Components: Reuse Plan (25), Operability (50), Other Properties (25) - Total: 100

Organization: Time Constrains (35), Labor Allocation (35), Other Limitations (30) - Total: 68

For the beam components, the scores were:

Regulations: Specifications (40), Eco Requirements (35), Other Regulations (25) - Total: 100

Environment: Geographic Conditions (25), Spatial Limitations (50), Other Limitations (25) - Total: 100

Equipment: Lifting Machinery (50), Construction Machinery (25), Construction Tools (25) - Total: 100

Components: Reuse Plan (25), Operability (50), Other Properties (25) - Total: 100

Organization: Time Constrains (35), Labor Allocation (35), Other Limitations (30) - Total: 58

The lower score for the beam components is primarily due to the changes in stability during the deconstruction and reconstruction processes. This is supported by our construction process photographs, which show significant step-by-step variations between the disassembly phase (35 steps) and the assembly phase (25 steps). These variations indicate that the procedures for beams differ considerably, affecting the overall PMD score.

We have revised the relevant sections of the paper to clarify these points and provide a more detailed explanation of the score differences.

Comments 5: In discussion section you have indicated that there are 3 limitations but have brought out 2. Could you also explain if and how your method can be applied to other construction types for example wood prefab and regular in situ construction in addition to light steel structure.

Response 5：Thank you for your comments. We have made the following revisions to address your concerns:

In the discussion section, we initially indicated that there are three limitations but only described two. We have now added the third limitation, which concerns the applicability of the PMD methodology to different types of construction projects beyond the lightweight steel structure studied in the paper. We acknowledge that the current study focuses on a specific construction type, and future research should explore the application of PMD to various construction methods, such as wood prefab and regular in situ construction, to ensure the generalizability and robustness of the PMD methodology.

We hope these revisions adequately address your concerns and look forward to your feedback.Please refer to the red-marked sections in Discussion of the revised manuscript for detailed comparisons and enhancements.

Comments 6: By my opinion Figures 7 and 8 do not add any value to this paper. Please justify the use of them if you want to keep these.

Response 6：Thank you for your comments. Our initial intent was to illustrate the tools used for collecting images and the collected image data. However, as these images were already utilized in the subsequent analysis, we acknowledge that their inclusion in the paper may not add significant value. Consequently, we have decided to remove Figures 7 and 8 from the manuscript.

Comments 7： The methods section, while detailed, could benefit from additional clarity, particularly in explaining the step-by-step process of the WCA and the scoring system for the PMD.

Response 7：Thank you for your comments. In response to your suggestion, we have added a detailed section in the Methodology to explain the step-by-step process of implementing the WCA and the scoring system for PMD. This section aims to provide clarity and enhance the comprehensiveness of our methodology. Please refer to the newly added section in the revised manuscript for a detailed explanation.

We appreciate your insights and believe that these additions significantly improve the clarity and robustness of our study.

Comments 8: Minor editing comments: some repetitions in the text, reference to table 2 is missing in the text.

Response 8：Thank you for your valuable comments. We have reviewed and made revisions to address the minor issues, such as textual expression and referencing errors. The changes can be seen in the new manuscript with red markings. We appreciate your feedback and the opportunity to improve our work.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for improving the paper. I believe the paper still has considerable flaws and I am sure that the authors have to address the below comments to improve the paper:

·         The introduction provides a general overview but lacks specific examples of the real-world impact of Process Matching Degree (PMD). Including case studies where quantitative assessment methods have improved efficiency or reduced costs would strengthen the argument. For instance, Ioannou et al. presented the "matched pairs" method, which increased construction efficiency from 55% to 95%, showcasing the practical value of quantitative research on construction processes. Can the authors provide additional examples of projects that have benefited from similar methods?

·         The methodology section needs more clarity regarding the criteria and data used to determine and adjust the weight values. Specifically, the process of how expert opinions were incorporated into this process requires elaboration. The current explanation mentions that weight values were adjusted based on a survey of 20 experts, but it would be beneficial to detail the survey's design, the nature of the questions asked, and how the responses were quantified. Additionally, include a discussion on the validation of the methodology. How were the criteria tested for reliability and validity?

·         The literature review should be expanded to cover a broader range of studies, particularly those related to BIM applications in energy-efficient and low-carbon buildings, as well as safety frameworks in construction. For example, Section: Introduction, Lines 42-55: The inclusion of the paper by Rajabi et al. (2022) "Underlying Factors and Strategies for Organizational BIM Capabilities: The Case of Iran" would add significant value to your discussion on the impact of different capability factors on OBIMC and the underlying strategies to improve OBIMC. This paper provides a detailed structural equation model explaining the links between the capability factors and strategies linked to OBIMC, which directly relates to your research on process optimization. Section: Literature Review, Lines 78-98: Citing Rajabi et al. (2022) "Key Assessment Criteria for Organizational BIM Capabilities: A Cross-Regional Study" would strengthen your analysis of organizational BIM capabilities. This study's comparison of assessment criteria between Malaysia and Iran can provide a broader context and validation for your research findings, highlighting the global applicability and criticality of BIM capabilities assessment.

·         The results section needs to address the limitation of using a single case study. Using one case limits the generalizability of the findings. To provide broader validation, consider a comparative analysis with multiple projects. Explain how the findings from this single case study will be applicable across diverse construction projects. What steps will be taken in future research to test the PMD methodology on different types of construction projects?

 

·         The integration of PMD evaluation with BIM software needs further elaboration. Detail how the BIM model facilitates PMD calculation and any challenges faced. For instance, discuss how the accuracy of BIM models impacts PMD calculations and the potential discrepancies between simulated and actual construction processes. Are there any technical limitations in using BIM for this purpose that need to be addressed in future research?

Author Response

Comments 1: The introduction provides a general overview but lacks specific examples of the real-world impact of Process Matching Degree (PMD). Including case studies where quantitative assessment methods have improved efficiency or reduced costs would strengthen the argument. For instance, Ioannou et al. presented the "matched pairs" method, which increased construction efficiency from 55% to 95%, showcasing the practical value of quantitative research on construction processes. Can the authors provide additional examples of projects that have benefited from similar methods? 

Response 1：

Thanks again for your comments, we conducted another literature search and directly related literature such as Eldeep et al. can reduce the design cycle time by 50% through the application of BIM technology and can reduce the construction period by 1 and a half months, and also add about the construction process on productivity, technology facilitation, and comparison of different processes and other research content for research, but like Ioannou et al. and Eldeep et al. can directly use quantitative methods to achieve efficiency gains are not many studies, which just shows the necessity of studying the quantification of construction process sequences and the PMD of sequences we propose, as well as the possible positive effects on the cost, duration, quality, carbon emissions, social environment, and productivity of construction sequences in the real world. Specific additions to the literature and similar approaches are specified below:

Eldeep et al. studied the construction process lean management, which mentioned the importance of visualization for the construction process management and verified the importance of BIM, which is defined as a modeling technology and associated set of BIM is defined as a modeling technology and associated set of processes for producing, communicating, and analyzing building models.Through the application of BIM technology again construction process, the design cycle can be shortened by 50%, and at the same time in the enhancement of the management of construction process, it makes the real construction cycle shortened by 1 and a half months.

Chacón et al. demonstrates how information pipelines and knowledge graph technologies can be utilized to enable continuous monitoring and analysis of the building construction process through a digital twin case study of a reinforced concrete frame structure of an office building, It also highlights its potential to improve productivity, resource efficiency, health and safety in construction environments,but does not present a quantitative indicator of how much productivity is specifically improved by the relevant research.

Chen et al. proposed a method for evaluating the productivity of the construction process through video data, analyzing the image data to form the evaluation indexes for equipment, personnel, time, and trajectory, and establishing a method for real-time evaluation of the process of the construction plant, and establishing the Process Monitoring and Problem Feedback (PMPF) framework, we also note that this paper also introduces related some research literature on construction process quantification, which is valuable for our research on process quantification.

Jia et al. proposed a point cloud model based on multi-source geospatial data to realize a two-way interaction mechanism between BIM and the actual construction process, which provides an innovative methodology to ensure the quality of fine construction and improve the efficiency of building construction, and it is inspirational for us to study the two-way interaction between BIM and the actual construction process, but the authors did not conduct a quantitative study of BIM and real construction process to compare the differences between them.

Yilmaz et al. developed the BIM Competency Assessment Reference Model (BIM-CAREM), which provides a systematic approach to assess BIM competencies for design, construction, and facilities management processes in the building industry, and helps organizations to more efficiently implement and improve BIM technologies, which in turn improves the efficiency of building construction processes and quality.

Pfitzner et al. captured the process of the construction site through the image acquisition equipment and detected the construction process through the image recognition technology and built a knowledge graph of the various elements in the construction process, which gives us an idea to use the data acquisition technology through the acquired data to quantitatively evaluate the data compared with the detection data.

Yang et al. proposed a new framework for process management to address construction process optimization for prefabricated and cast-in-place components,by using IFC, flexible work break-down structure (WBS) and constraints based simulation (CBS) method。this scheduling framework can faithfully scheduling the mixed construction process at different scale in a single BIM environment, and the comparison with traditional way shows it reduces the scheduling burden, improve the resources usage efficiency.

The above improvements have been marked in red in the new manuscript..

Comments 2: The methodology section needs more clarity regarding the criteria and data used to determine and adjust the weight values. Specifically, the process of how expert opinions were incorporated into this process requires elaboration. The current explanation mentions that weight values were adjusted based on a survey of 20 experts, but it would be beneficial to detail the survey's design, the nature of the questions asked, and how the responses were quantified. Additionally, include a discussion on the validation of the methodology. How were the criteria tested for reliability and validity?

Response 2：Thank you again for your comments, the general evaluation process of WCA is (1) determine the evaluation indicators; (2) assign weights: the weight's can be determined by expert scoring, AHP, etc., this paper uses the scoring directly by experts through questionnaire research; (3) standardize the evaluation data: by forming the evaluation table form; (4) calculate the weighted score: that is, multiply the evaluation score with the weights before cumulative; (5) derive results for analysis and decision-making. PMD was initially established by following the evaluation process of WCA, and when determining the weights of PMD indicators, we directly conducted expert scoring through the research and directly determined the initial evaluation weights of PMD indicators based on the scratch scores, and did not use methods similar to the AHP, Delphi method and other methods to further analyze and process the results, which is also the focus of our subsequent continued research.

In order to verify the reliability of the questionnaire and response results, we used Cronbach's α on the data returned from the questionnaire, and the result was 0.895, with good data reliability and validity. The specific adjustment was that we added a section on Questionnaire design and weighting to the methodology, as detailed in section 3.1 in the new manuscript..

Comments 3: The literature review should be expanded to cover a broader range of studies, particularly those related to BIM applications in energy-efficient and low-carbon buildings, as well as safety frameworks in construction. For example, Section: Introduction, Lines 42-55: The inclusion of the paper by Rajabi et al. (2022) "Underlying Factors and Strategies for Organizational BIM Capabilities: The Case of Iran" would add significant value to your discussion on the impact of different capability factors on OBIMC and the underlying strategies to improve OBIMC. This paper provides a detailed structural equation model explaining the links between the capability factors and strategies linked to OBIMC, which directly relates to your research on process optimization. Section: Literature Review, Lines 78-98: Citing Rajabi et al. (2022) "Key Assessment Criteria for Organizational BIM Capabilities: A Cross-Regional Study" would strengthen your analysis of organizational BIM capabilities. This study's comparison of assessment criteria between Malaysia and Iran can provide a broader context and validation for your research findings, highlighting the global applicability and criticality of BIM capabilities assessment.

Response 3：Thank you again for your comments, which are very valuable to us in terms of BIM applications in energy-efficient and low-carbon buildings, as well as safety frameworks in construction and process optimization leading to cost reduction, Your comments are very valuable to us in terms of cost reduction and efficiency improvement brought by BIM applications in energy-efficient and low-carbon buildings, as well as safety frameworks in construction and process optimization. According to your suggestion, in addition to adding the literature in the 1st comment in Introduction, we also added and modified some literature in 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 respectively, which are used to illustrate the current status of research on process quantification, and at the same time, combined with the new technology such as BIM technology, we highlight the practicality and criticality of the application of the assessment of BIM technology, and the specific additions are as follows:

Ayfokru et al. introduced the realization of building construction process construction waste reduction through construction process lean management. Evaluation indexes of construction process waste were established by AHP to improve the level of lean construction.

Barkokebas et al. proposed a digital methodology combining expert opinion and real-time sensor data to evaluate construction process improvements proposed in manufacturing environments by applying machine learning algorithms and hypothesis testing, which is inspirational for improving the Offsite Construction (OSC) process quantitative evaluation is enlightening.

Almasri et al. investigated a methodology for work plan evaluation of lightweight steel structures in terms of cost, time, functionality and sustainability, reflecting their own advantages and the significance of optimizing their construction.

Please check the new manuscript for detailed revisions, marking the areas in red..

Comments 4: The results section needs to address the limitation of using a single case study. Using one case limits the generalizability of the findings. To provide broader validation, consider a comparative analysis with multiple projects. Explain how the findings from this single case study will be applicable across diverse construction projects. What steps will be taken in future research to test the PMD methodology on different types of construction projects?

Response 4：Thank you again for your comments, the evaluation of PMD for a single lightweight steel building is indeed insufficient and not indicative of generalizability, after the team's efforts, we have added a case study of a concrete structural prefabricated building project, which all structural components were completed by UHPC, and the construction process was simulated in the design phase through a BIM-based support for the construction design, and the construction process in detail, we have calculated the PMD for this project, and the value of PMD is higher than case 1, and analyzed the reason, the details can be viewed in section 4.3 of the new manuscript. After the evaluation and analysis of these 2 cases, it is proved that PMD is equally applicable in different structure types, but it should be noted that PMD also has limitations, and is not a universal indicator evaluation, which can partially respond to the cost, efficiency, productivity, and level of design and construction, etc., and can be used as a ruler to guide the enhancement of these indicators in the construction process.

We have made more adjustments to the case sections, specifically including making Case 1 and Case 2 as 1 section each, and adding 2 cases for comparative illustration, as detailed in the new manuscript.

Comments 5: The integration of PMD evaluation with BIM software needs further elaboration. Detail how the BIM model facilitates PMD calculation and any challenges faced. For instance, discuss how the accuracy of BIM models impacts PMD calculations and the potential discrepancies between simulated and actual construction processes. Are there any technical limitations in using BIM for this purpose that need to be addressed in future research?

Response 5：Thank you again for your detailed comments regarding the integration of PMD evaluation with BIM software. We appreciate your insights and would like to address your concerns comprehensively. The BIM model plays a crucial role in facilitating PMD calculations by providing accurate and detailed information about the building components, their assembly sequences, and process properties. The integration of PMD evaluation with BIM allows for a more precise and automated assessment of construciton ,deconstruction and reconstruction processes. However, this integration does come with certain challenges. One major challenge is the accuracy of BIM models, which directly impacts the reliability of PMD calculations. Any discrepancies between the BIM model and the real construction process, such as differences in component sizes, placement, or process properties, can lead to inaccuracies in the PMD evaluation. Additionally, technical limitations exist in using BIM for PMD evaluation, including the complexity of modeling detailed construction sequences and the need for interoperability between different software platforms. In future research, we aim to address these challenges by improving the accuracy of BIM models through better data collection and verification processes, enhancing the integration between BIM and PMD tools, and developing methods to minimize discrepancies between simulated and actual construction processes. We believe that addressing these technical limitations will significantly enhance the effectiveness and reliability of PMD evaluation in construction projects. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback. 

We have added a portion of our final conclusions and future research that evaluates the realization of PMD by BIM technology, as detailed in the Discussion and Future Research section of the new manuscript marked in the red color.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The corrections are adequate.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your positive feedback on our work. We appreciate your recognition and support.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been improved and can be considered for publication