An Application of a Multi-Criteria Approach for the Development of a Process Reference Model for Supply Chain Operations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is well written.

The topic started to be very interesting for me, but in the end, it did not satisfy my expectations. But it is still quite an interesting study.

In this paper the authors are comparing a set of tools in several aspects. Nevertheless, in my opinion, some of the tools included in the study are not BPM tools.

The only tool included in this study that really is a BPM tool is ARIS, so these conclusions are the ones already expected.  It's hard for me to accept that that Microsoft Visio is a BPM tool… 

Microsoft Visio (and other tools like StarUML Draw.io and many other) are software designing tools. Anyway, the Microsoft Visio allows us to design model Entity-relationship models, so in table 2, T2 X ERM, it must be YES.

My question is “How did you decide which tools to include in the study?”

The first time an abbreviation appears in the text, its meaning must be clarified. For example, the definition of BPM only appears in pag. 8. So, at first, I didn’t realize if BPM refers to Business Process Modeling or to Business Process Management.

I didn't understand how this study relates to the supply chain ... you mention supply chain in the tittle, as a key word and in the abstract but you never mention it again. Maybe you should rethink the title or clarify this issue in the text and in the conclusion.

The title and introduction of the article does not match rest of the article, including with the conclusion.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We have revised the manuscript according to your kind comments. Please see the attachment for our response to your comments.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting paper that presents a reference model for the selection of the approach tool for business process modelling in logistics. As mentioned by the authors, there are numerous tools and techniques out there, and in my opinion, the paper and the approach presented within it provide a reference point for researchers and companies for selecting an appropriate tool. The combination of preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation together with AHP for assignment node weightings is reasonable. However, considering the theme of the paper (i.e. information systems- systems analysis) and the accepted topics in Sustainability, I think some robust justifications would be required to strengthen the paper’s contribution to the wider topics in sustainability. I think there should be more discussions on the benefits that your approach offers to enhance the sustainability of supply management and logistics.

 

Therefore, in my opinion, the manuscript would benefit from the following alterations:

1. The abstract should be rewritten; for instance, within the abstract, you have mentioned “The MCDA’s results showed that the 24 ARIS Architect & Designer Tool was the one to better meet the needs”; which needs are you referring to? There is no mention of users/organisations’ needs prior to this statement. Moreover, the case study for the application of the reference model and the testbed is freight, yet there is no mention of this in the abstract.
2. The background and literature should critically review the benefits that such a reference model could offer to sustainability. There are a few sentences highlighting the impact of freight transportation on sustainability e.g. pollution, however, this is required to be much further expanded.
3. There are 8 business process modelling tools that are selected for prioritisation and ranking purposes as part of the proposed approach. However, it seems that numerous other well-known tools are not included in your study. Examples include Oracle BPA, and Intalio, among others. Section 3.3. should clearly explain why these 8 were selected.
4. As highlighted above, the discussion section should provide a sound argument about the benefits that your work offers to Sustainability.
5. The paper would benefit from another round of proof reading, since there are minor typos and English errors throughout.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We have revised our manuscript according to your kind comments. Thank you for your valuable help in improving our paper.

Please find attached our reply to your comments.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

some changes were made for the better, so the article became more interesting.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thanks for your kind comments and for your help in improving our paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for providing the revised manuscript and responses. I am happy with the changes made to the manuscript, and the responses provided in the areas that no change was made. In particular I found the addition of Table 1 very useful. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thanks for your kind comments and for your help in improving our paper.