Sustainability Assessment of Machinery Safety in a Manufacturing Organization Using AHP and CART Methods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript explores the integration of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Classification and Regression Tree (CART) methods to improve machinery safety within manufacturing organizations, focusing on reducing losses and enhancing sustainability. It demonstrates, through a specific example, how multi-criteria decision-making supported by AHP aids in evaluating the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of safety measures, while CART analysis assesses their sustainability. The study develops a comprehensive model to assist management in making informed decisions about implementing and improving safety measures, aligning with manufacturing sustainability goals. It emphasizes the importance of accurate safety-related data throughout the machinery lifecycle, the need for effective communication between manufacturers and end-users, and the multifaceted nature of workplace safety. By prioritizing safety measures through AHP and CART analyses, the research highlights the potential for integrating safety into the system design phase, strategic planning, and fostering a safety culture. The findings suggest that organizations can significantly reduce risks and promote sustainability by focusing on preventive measures, investing in technology, and training employees, advocating for safety measures as part of a broader corporate sustainability strategy that balances environmental, social, and economic considerations.

1. The sensitivity or robustness of the model solution to potential shifts in strategy priority is somewhat vague. It could be clarified with a specific example or more detailed explanation.
2. The passage "The problem is as we have already mentioned that only 4 undesirable events (HS/E) are affected" could be rephrased for clarity and flow, such as "As previously mentioned, a limitation is that only 4 types of undesirable events (HS/E) are addressed.
3. The manuscript assumes that AHP and CART methods are compatible and can be seamlessly integrated for assessing machinery safety. While both methods are valuable, their integration requires a logical framework that justifies how the subjective judgments of AHP can be effectively combined with the objective data analysis of CART.
4. The manuscript does not address the potential variability in risk perception among different stakeholders within the organization. Assuming a homogeneous perception of risk could lead to recommendations that do not align with the views of all affected parties, such as machine operators versus management.
5. The analysis seems to focus on a predefined set of safety measures without thoroughly exploring alternative or innovative safety interventions that could be more effective or cost-efficient.
6. The methodology suggests an implicit expectation that increased investment in safety measures will linearly translate to improved safety outcomes. This overlooks the potential for diminishing returns and the complexity of factors influencing safety performance.
7. Replace "in this article using a specific example from practice we will show" with "this article demonstrates using a specific example from practice," for clarity and conciseness.
8. The phrase "Safety Related Data (SRD) are essential to maximise" uses British spelling "maximise". Consistency in American or British English should be maintained throughout the document.
9. "However, the lack of appropriate communication be-" could be improved for clarity: "However, the absence of effective communication between..."
10. "Machinery in manufacturing creates a dynamic environment especially with respect to the requirements of Industry 4.0" could be clearer as "In manufacturing, machinery creates a dynamic environment, particularly in meeting Industry 4.0 requirements."
11. A sustainable approach to machine operator safety in an organisation involves integration should maintain consistent spelling for "organization" if using American English.
12. The article focuses on internal decision-making and the efficiency of safety measures without adequately considering external factors such as regulatory changes, technological advancements, or economic shifts that could impact the relevance and effectiveness of the proposed safety measures.

The final proofreading is required to catch and correct minor grammatical errors and typos. 

Author Response

Thank you for the comments, the explanation and incorporated comments are summarized in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

A comprehensive model has been developed to support management decision making in manufacturing organizations in implementing and improving safety measures in line with manufacturing sustainability goals. The manuscript shows how to use multi-criteria decision making to support Machinery Safety Decision Making (MSDM) from the point of reducing losses. It has certain research significance, but there are the following questions worth thinking about.

1. Please distinguish “multicriteria decision making” and “AHP” in the manuscript.

2. The logic of the latter part of the introduction confused. Mechanical safety and sustainability assessments are not clearly addressed here. When introducing the safety of mechanical operators in the organization, the purpose of this paper is described there. Please comb through the logic of the manuscript.

3. It was not stated why medical machinery was chosen as the only specific example to analyze. There is also no reasonable analysis of the machines being evaluated, which is not convincing enough.

4. Table 7 in the manuscript does not show how to calculate the score of PND.  The calculation is difficult for the reader to understand.

5. The naming of the three levels in Figure 1 is not appropriate to the corresponding expression.

6. The conclusion part does not apply the examples and data of the text to support the mechanical safety decision-making, and more supplementary explanations should be made to improve the conclusion.

All in all, the author must sort out the logic of the article according to the writing norms of scientific papers and check all the details of the article. If the author considers continuing to publish the paper in this journal, he should submit it again after modification and improvement.

Author Response

Thank you for the comments, the explanation and incorporated comments are summarized in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In this paper, AHP and CART methods are used to in the assessment of machinery safety. The efficiency, cost-effectiveness and the sustainability level of the relevant safety measures are estimated. A comprehensive model is  developed to support management decision making in manufacturing organizations. In general, the paper is well structured and has certain significance. My concerns include

1. AHP method largely depends on the expert opinions. However, it is not mentioned how many experts are invited in the study. Moreover, how to obtain the consensus of experts? Is there any expert who is excluded in the enquiry. Which method is employed? Please give more details about AHP.

2. The overfitting problem is an important issue in the CART method since it affects the generalization ability of CART. However, it is not mentioned in the paper. Is there any measures taken to diminish the overfitting problem in the study?

3. The limitation of the paper is not mentioned.

4. In the introduction, the contributions of the paper should be made clearer.

Minor editing of English language is required.

Author Response

Thank you for the comments, the explanation and incorporated comments are summarized in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

It is an interesting example of usage of risk assessment and countermeasures with decision-making based on AHP and CART methods. Both methods are applied as they should be, the results are convincing. I have some remarks regarding the other things in the paper, see the comments in the attachement.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

English in the paper is on a good level. But it can be improved, some sentences are long and need rearrangement.

Author Response

Thank you for the comments, the explanation and incorporated comments are summarized in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Agreed with the revisions made by authors. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors completed the reviewer's suggestions for modification or improvement. The reviewer considers that the revised manuscript meets the requirements for publication in the journal.