Improving the Performance of a SME in the Cutlery Sector Using Lean Thinking and Digital Transformation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulations for action-research method applied! 

Suggestions:

1. I would improve the formulation of the aim of the paper (not presenting the project, but the project is a method and other things are subject to be presented).

2. Method. The method applied should be presented in more details, starting from why such method chosen, how groups constructed, when the action was implemented, why such organisation was chosen, and etc.

3. Discussions should be developed (non existant now).

4. Conclusions. I would suggest to set some limits of validity of your research results. Why, just one company, very small and very specific, is analized and the conclusions should take it into acocunt.

5. Visibitity of some pictures should be improved.

 

Author Response

1. I would improve the formulation of the aim of the paper (not presenting the project, but the project is a method and other things are subject to be presented).

The aim of the paper has been reformulated – now the company’s project is presented as the method and the objective is to show that if some specific contextual factors are present, it is possible to achieve exceptional improvements in a production system. This reformulation, implied changes in the abstract (including in the research question), introduction and conclusions.

2. Method. The method applied should be presented in more details, starting from why such method chosen, how groups constructed, when the action was implemented, why such organisation was chosen, and etc.

The methods section was improved in order to meet the details requested. It justifies why it is this company, the research methods adopted and the formation of the project team, and also indicates the period during which the project took place.

3. Discussions should be developed (non existant now).

An additional section was created for the discussion.

4. Conclusions. I would suggest to set some limits of validity of your research results. Why, just one company, very small and very specific, is analized and the conclusions should take it into acocunt.

Additional text has been added to the conclusions to address the requested aspects, namely in terms of study limitations (why just one company).

5. Visibility of some pictures should be improved.

An effort was made in improving the Pictures’ visibility was improved.

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall:

A well written paper outlining the importance of adaptation of Digital Lean and Green approaches to facilitate companies achieve their goals. 

There are few comments/suggestions:

Line 79, Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) as supposed to sustainable development goals. (CAPS)

Line 117, reference switch places to align with the rest of the paper from [13][3] to [3][13].

Suggestion for improved clarity for the readers: 

Line 195, The authors have mentioned phases of the research, however, the below are listed as points. If the authors can rephrase Line 195, or make changes to the lines below 195 with heading with the name of the Phases, it would be great. Also Line 223. refers to as State. Should this be referred to as Phase as well? 

413-415 Can the authors answer how high levels of WIP forgotten on the shopfloor were identified and the process were completed? Did this cause any impacts and how were the issues mitigated?

424 - Tablets were distributed throughout the factory, can the authors be more specific?

Line 597, the line states, "These results were achieved using low-cost technologies with simple computer applications installed on tablets integrated into a network with the PPC system"

- Could the authors kindly provide more information on this? There are two main questions,

1 .Was the software developed during the course of the study or an licensed software was used?

2. With regards to my previous comment related to line 424, distribution of handheld devices such as an tablet are expensive. Was there any particular importance given to people who were given a tablet. 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

please consider attached document

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

From my personal point of view, it is a very promising issue to research on. However, I find some space for improvement.  

    The abstract preferably contains key elements of the research gap, further research, and practical and scientific implications.
    The research gap could be more revealed by the scientific literature analysis. Industry 4.0 is just mentioned in keywords, though no scientific literature analysis is in the publication. The analysis of the explorations might suggest valuable aspects. Lean, Digital transformation and Industry 4.0 are phenomena of different sets. Sustainability is not explored. If analysed from the scientific point of view this difference would become clearer, and the authors would find a more specific focus. More elaboration on this would improve the publication.
    The reference list should be more specified with all necessary information. Each reference should include a year of publishing, etc.
    Methodology design, ethics and protocol should be presented in the section Methods and the justification of the method has to be introduced and based on the scientific and methodological sources. The data collection, processing and analysis should be explained, and the source of the primary data should be introduced.
    The indicators that are used in the research are not the output of the scientific literature analysis which should be the case. The indicators do not come from the literature on the usual Industry 4.0 or Lean or sustainability but rather are typical indicators of any production improvement.
    The figures and tables should have a clear identification of sources used for the table and figures and year.
    Discussion should debate own findings with other scholars‘ explorations. Recommendations, limitations, future research, and contribution to the science (indicating the field of science) should be introduced.

Author Response

please consider attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors provided adequate updates to the first version (round) of reviews. No additional updates needed.

Author Response

Thank you.