Assessment of Sustainable Maintenance Strategy for Manufacturing Industry
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The current work describes a framework for sustainable maintenance of the equipment in manufacturing industry, based on three approaches to assessment of four proposed strategies, which are relevant according to the author. The evaluation of the proposed strategies is based on several criterions divided into four groups: economic, social, environmental, and technical requirements. A case study with results of the assessment of the four strategies is also presented, based on the expertise of six specialists from an enterprise. As result, the best and the worst of the maintenance strategies is established in the conclusions section of the work.
The work is intended to deal with an important problem for the industry, and has some merits, but at the same time there are many unclear moments and drawbacks made in the content. They are as follows (in order of occurrence):
1. In the abstract and several times in the paper' content, the author specify that four maintenance strategies is assessed: periodic maintenance (S1), meter-based maintenance (S2), periodic maintenance (S3), and prescriptive maintenance (S4). But the S1 and S3 strategies are named in the same way "periodic maintenance". Is there any difference between S1 and S3? Perhaps a more detailed explanation of the nature of each of these strategies should be included in order to be distinguished properly.
2. The meaning of participating parameters are not described at all or properly in the all of the given formulas. For example:
2.1 Before the Equation 2, author states that "For figuring out the coefficient R: Equation (2) is used to determine this coefficient as a function...", but in the Eq. 2 there is no coefficient R shown.
2.2 The left side of the Equation 16 was denoted same way as the left side of Equation 15, but from the Equations 17 and 18 it is clear that these two parameters have different designations.
The author should consider whether a "Nomenclature" section with participating parameters in the formulas and the abbreviations to be included in the paper, in order to clarify their meaning unambiguously.
3. In the section "v. Sustainability Results" and also in the "Conclusion" section, the author says "Figure 6 demonstrates that S2 is the most effective system maintenance method. On the other hand, S4 was determined to be the system’s least effective maintenance plan (Figure 6)." However, the bar-diagram shown in the Figure 6 does not support such a claim. According to the given figure, the worst strategy is S1. May be Figures 5 and 6 are swapped mistakenly. The author should revise the diagrams, or its findings from the case study.
4. Some technical mistakes (omissions) are also encountered in the cited bibliography (i.e. citation style) in the text. For example: see lines 110 and 137.
5. It is strongly recommended that the author specify more precisely the field of activity of the manufacturing enterprise to which the assessment applies, as well as the possible strategies for maintaining the equipment for it. As presented, the strategies and case study currently sound too general and it is difficult to judge whether the pointed strategies are the best or the worst. This suggests that the result applies to every enterprise in the industry, which cannot be true, not least because, the technological, social, economic and environmental conditions (features) can be radically different in different countries over the world.
Author Response
Q1. In the abstract and several times in the paper' content, the author specify that four maintenance strategies is assessed: periodic maintenance (S1), meter-based maintenance (S2), periodic maintenance (S3), and prescriptive maintenance (S4). But the S1 and S3 strategies are named in the same way "periodic maintenance". Is there any difference between S1 and S3? Perhaps a more detailed explanation of the nature of each of these strategies should be included in order to be distinguished properly.
R1: This mistake has been corrected. Also, explanation has been included in the manuscript (Table 1).
- The meaning of participating parameters are not described at all or properly in the all of the given formulas. For example:
Q2.1 Before the Equation 2, author states that "For figuring out the coefficient R: Equation (2) is used to determine this coefficient as a function...", but in the Eq. 2 there is no coefficient R shown.
R1: This sentence has been corrected as follows:
Equation (2) is used to determine each criterion’s fuzzy coefficient [22]:
Q2.2 The left side of the Equation 16 was denoted same way as the left side of Equation 15, but from the Equations 17 and 18 it is clear that these two parameters have different designations.
R 2.2: Equations (15) and (16) are used to the benefit- and cost-based sustainability criteria, respectively.
|
if j = benefit-based sustainability criterion |
(15) |
|
if j = cost-based sustainability criterion |
(16) |
Q2.3: The author should consider whether a "Nomenclature" section with participating parameters in the formulas and the abbreviations to be included in the paper, in order to clarify their meaning unambiguously.
R2: A nomenclature section has been included in the manuscript.
Q3. In the section "v. Sustainability Results" and also in the "Conclusion" section, the author says "Figure 6 demonstrates that S2 is the most effective system maintenance method. On the other hand, S4 was determined to be the system’s least effective maintenance plan (Figure 6)." However, the bar-diagram shown in the Figure 6 does not support such a claim. According to the given figure, the worst strategy is S1. May be Figures 5 and 6 are swapped mistakenly. The author should revise the diagrams, or its findings from the case study.
R3: This issue has been corrected.
Q4. Some technical mistakes (omissions) are also encountered in the cited bibliography (i.e. citation style) in the text. For example: see lines 110 and 137.
R4. The mistakes have been corrected.
Q5. It is strongly recommended that the author specify more precisely the field of activity of the manufacturing enterprise to which the assessment applies, as well as the possible strategies for maintaining the equipment for it. As presented, the strategies and case study currently sound too general and it is difficult to judge whether the pointed strategies are the best or the worst. This suggests that the result applies to every enterprise in the industry, which cannot be true, not least because, the technological, social, economic and environmental conditions (features) can be radically different in different countries over the world
R5. Information about the case study has been included in the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author:
Your article is interesting, however, I have the following comments and suggestions:
1.- Why do you consider that a sample of 6 specialists was sufficient for the study?
2.- How did you evaluate the questionnaire? What techniques were used?
3.- Current references must be used
4.- It is recommended that Tables and Figures be adequately explained.
Author Response
Q1: Why do you consider a sample of six specialists was sufficient for the work?
R1: The six groups of specialists were selected based on literature standard [1] – see page 13.
Q2: How did you evaluate the questionnaire? What technique was used?
R2: The questionnaire includes a succinct introduction and purpose statement. It contains impartial questions while including open-ended questions and a rating scale. This study ensures that the questionnaire is brief and contains no presumptive questions.
Q3: Current references must be used.
R3: Four recent articles have been added to the work [1 -4].
Q4: It is recommended that tables and figures be adequately explained.
R4: More explanations have been provided for Tables and figures that require explanations. More explanations have been provided about tables 6, 10, 14 and 18.
- Guan, X., & Zhao, J. (2022). A Two-Step Fuzzy MCDM Method for Implementation of Sustainable Precision Manufacturing: Evidence from China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8085.
- Mohammadian, A., Heidary Dahooie, J., Qorbani, A. R., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2021). A new multi-attribute decision-making framework for policy-makers by using interval-valued triangular fuzzy numbers. Informatica, 32(3), 583-618.
- Ghoushchi, S. J., Jalalat, S. M., Bonab, S. R., Ghiaci, A. M., Haseli, G., & Tomaskova, H. (2022). Evaluation of Wind Turbine Failure Modes Using the Developed SWARA-CoCoSo Methods Based on the Spherical Fuzzy Environment. IEEE Access, 10, 86750-86764.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revisions and additional clarifications made by author are corresponding to the critical remarks from the first review round. I accept them as is, but my last recommendation is the meaning of the term "xojk", which participating in the equations 17 - 20, also to be clarified.
Author Response
Xojk denotes the referenced value for criterion j.
