Construction of Sustainable Digital Factory for Automated Warehouse Based on Integration of ERP and WMS
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Paper 2112470 review to Sustainability – Construction of sustainable digital factory for automated warehouse based on integration of ERP and WMS
All issues raised in this review can be considered to be minor reviews and just one as a major review.
General considerations
The theme of the use of digitization in industry and its application in warehouse management is extremely current and relevant. The article is very well structured and the ideas are presented clearly and in a logical sequence. The data collection method and the analysis of the results obtained are presented in a perceptible way. The case study shows well, and in a very profound way, the connection between the practical and theoretical components inherent to the theme. And so, most of the suggestions presented in the review of this article can be considered as being minor reviews. However, much of the text presented before the case study section is poorly referenced and scientifically unsupported. Thus, this seems to be the only consideration that can already be seen as a major review.
1. Structure
The structure of the article is well elaborated, and the titles of sections and subsections are appropriate. But the numbering in subsection 6.2.1.14 is wrong: it should be 6.2.1.4. And section 8 should be numbered as 7. On the other hand: in subsections 1, 3 and 6 they should have a summary paragraph about their content and not be immediately followed by a subsection; and authors could reduce the huge amount of existing subsections, by using bulleted topics.
2. Title, Abstract and Keywords
· The title is appropriate as it contains important information and is attractive to readers.
· The abstract is well constructed. The purpose of the study in presented, and the main conclusions obtained are pointed out. However, the authors lack a succinct description of the research methodology followed in the works that were developed.
· The keywords are adequate.
3. Figures and tables
The figures and tables are all well numbered and have good visual quality. But there were identified some aspects that should be corrected, namely:
· Figure 3 is partially visible, so authors must adapt it to A4 format;
· Table 2 should not be a scanned image, but constructed by the authors with the same type of formatting as Table 1;
· The figures are too large, which takes away space for the rest of the article, if it has some type of page limitation imposed by the Journal template. Therefore, the authors should check this aspect and resize the figures, if necessary.
4. Grammar, spelling and syntax issues
The whole article it's well written in terms of grammar and spelling. But there were identified some aspects that should be improved/corrected throughout the article, namely:
· Whenever the full part of an acronym is used, the initial letters of each word should be capitalized;
· Most acronyms should be accompanied by its respective meaning in full, but only when it is the first time that they are used;
· The subsections of sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 contain only very few references, and given that most of the information presented is of a general nature, the authors should provide more references to support the text in a scientific way;
· Whenever topics marked with bullets are presented, at the end of each sentence there should be a semicolon, and in the last of the sentences there should be a full stop;
· In line 209 there is 1 more space before the term "In addition...";
· In line 341 the acronym R&D must not have spaces in between.
5. Semantic and technical issues
The entire article is very well explained. The issues are explained clearly and the concepts and ideas are well articulated between themselves. The data collection method is explained clearly and objectively. The qualitative and quantitative analyzes are presented in a perceptible way. The case study is very well prepared and is explained in a deep, clear and appealing way to the reader, having a practical approach well-articulated with the literature review carried out.
6. References
The list of references is well prepared and the references presented are strong in the scope of this investigation.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer Comments
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Your critical and detailed comments and insights on our manuscript are greatly appreciated. These opinions are very valuable and helpful for the paper’s further improvement. We summit the new revised version together with the supplemental file responses to the reviewers’ comments for your further consideration. Below are our responses to the comments.
- Responses to comments of Reviewer #1:
Comment: The theme of the use of digitization in industry and its application in warehouse management is extremely current and relevant. The article is very well structured and the ideas are presented clearly and in a logical sequence. The data collection method and the analysis of the results obtained are presented in a perceptible way. The case study shows well, and in a very profound way, the connection between the practical and theoretical components inherent to the theme. And so, most of the suggestions presented in the review of this article can be considered as being minor reviews.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments and recognition of this paper.
Comment #1: Structure: The structure of the article is well elaborated, and the titles of sections and subsections are appropriate. But the numbering in subsection 6.2.1.14 is wrong: it should be 6.2.1.4. And section 8 should be numbered as 7. On the other hand: in subsections 1, 3 and 6 they should have a summary paragraph about their content and not be immediately followed by a subsection; and authors could reduce the huge amount of existing subsections, by using bulleted topics.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised numbering in subsection 6.2.1.4 and section 7. We also have added a summary paragraph about their content in subsections 1, 3 and 6.
Comment #2: Title, Abstract and Keywords: The title is appropriate as it contains important information and is attractive to readers. The abstract is well constructed. The purpose of the study in presented, and the main conclusions obtained are pointed out. However, the authors lack a succinct description of the research methodology followed in the works that were developed. The keywords are adequate.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised the Abstract Section, and added the contents of research methodology.
The supplementary contents are as follows:
Abstract Section: Due to the inconsistency between the information control system of the automated stereoscopic database and the information system of manufacturing enterprises, how to integrate and apply it has become a pain point for many manufacturing enterprises. This paper combines the method and technology of middle table, and the realization of automated warehouse based on the integration of ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) and WMS (Warehouse Management System) is studied to solve these above problem. Moreover, MES (Manufacturing Execution System) is the brain and the core part of sustainable digital factory. The enterprise adopts advanced intelligent and information technology to build and deploy the MES, realize fine management and agile production, and meet the personalized needs of the market. Therefore, this paper studies the implementation path and effect based on MES from an industrial realization to construct a sustainable digital factory. The research results of this paper can improve industrial efficiency and reduce costs for enterprises in storage capacity, handling capacity, response rate, rate of error, number of operators, etc.
Comment #3: Figures and tables: The figures and tables are all well numbered and have good visual quality. But there were identified some aspects that should be corrected, namely:
- Figure 3 is partially visible, so authors must adapt it to A4 format;
- Table 2 should not be a scanned image, but constructed by the authors with the same type of formatting as Table 1;
- The figures are too large, which takes away space for the rest of the article, if it has some type of page limitation imposed by the Journal template. Therefore, the authors should check this aspect and resize the figures, if necessary.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised the format of all figures and tables in this paper in detail. Figure 3 and Table 2 are revised according to your suggestions.
Comment #4: Grammar, spelling and syntax issues: The whole article it's well written in terms of grammar and spelling. But there were identified some aspects that should be improved/corrected throughout the article, namely:
- Whenever the full part of an acronym is used, the initial letters of each word should be capitalized;
- Most acronyms should be accompanied by its respective meaning in full, but only when it is the first time that they are used;
- The subsections of sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 contain only very few references, and given that most of the information presented is of a general nature, the authors should provide more references to support the text in a scientific way;
- Whenever topics marked with bullets are presented, at the end of each sentence there should be a semicolon, and in the last of the sentences there should be a full stop;
- In line 209 there is 1 more space before the term "In addition...";
- In line 341 the acronym R&D must not have spaces in between.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. The grammatical or language-related errors mentioned above in this paper have been corrected already. About the English writing of the manuscript, we asked for advice from a native English speaker to revise the paper before submitting to this journal.
Regarding references, we have added many references in sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 to support the text in a scientific way.
Comment #5: Semantic and technical issues: The entire article is very well explained. The issues are explained clearly and the concepts and ideas are well articulated between themselves. The data collection method is explained clearly and objectively. The qualitative and quantitative analyzes are presented in a perceptible way. The case study is very well prepared and is explained in a deep, clear and appealing way to the reader, having a practical approach well-articulated with the literature review carried out.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments and recognition of this paper.
Comment #6: References: The list of references is well prepared and the references presented are strong in the scope of this investigation.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments and recognition of this paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Paper is quite interesting, but I have few questions and suggestions.
First, in the Introduction is being said "Automated warehouse has been widely used in manufacturing enterprises because its high efficiency". How it goes together with Just-in-time systems, where factories has smallest warehouses possible...
Figures 3, 4, 5 are too big and should be smaller.
Chapter 6.2.2 is too detailed, I do not know what connection has various robots with integration of ERP a WMS.
There is too many abbrevitations, all of them should be explained at the first use.
The English is sometimes weird, it looks like translated by some AI.
But overall, the paper is interesting and if it will be improved (better readability), I suggest it for publication.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer Comments
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Your critical and detailed comments and insights on our manuscript are greatly appreciated. These opinions are very valuable and helpful for the paper’s further improvement. We summit the new revised version together with the supplemental file responses to the reviewers’ comments for your further consideration. Below are our responses to the comments.
- Responses to comments of Reviewer #2:
Comment: Paper is quite interesting, but I have few questions and suggestions.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments and recognition of this paper.
Comment #1: First, in the Introduction is being said "Automated warehouse has been widely used in manufacturing enterprises because its high efficiency". How it goes together with Just-in-time systems, where factories has smallest warehouses possible...
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have added the contents and references of automated warehouse together with Just-in-time systems highlighted in yellow colour in Section 1.1.
The supplementary contents are as follows:
Section1.1: The struggle to move to Just-In-Time (JIT) delivery requires distribution centres to readapt to this reality, and a mathematical programming approach is proposed, based on a min-max formulation that returns the optimized layout of a cross-docking warehouse that feeds a just-in-time distribution operation[15]. In order to together with Just-in-time systems, a mathematical model and a JIT parts feeding system are presented[16].
Comment #2: Figures 3, 4, 5 are too big and should be smaller.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised Figures 3, 4, 5 to let it be smaller.
Comment #3: Chapter 6.2.2 is too detailed, I do not know what connection has various robots with integration of ERP and WMS.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have simplified 6.2.2 and added the description of implementation path based on MES from workshop layer highlighted in yellow colour in section 6.2.2. Moreover, we have added the contents of the relationship between proposed architecture and case study in section 6.2 highlighted in yellow colour.
The supplementary contents are as follows:
Section 6.2: This case analyzes the overall architecture of the sustainable digital factory pro-posed in Section 2, mainly covering four levels, namely, enterprise layer (Section 2.1), workshop layer (Section 2.2), control layer (Section 2.3), and equipment layer (Section 2.4). In the enterprise layer, case studies mainly include: enterprise production management, enterprise collaborative management, collaborative supply chain management based on order life cycle, and support information system. At the workshop layer, case studies mainly include: digital design, automatic machining, robot assembly, intelligent detection, automatic production line, and supporting information system. In the control layer, case studies mainly include: precision manufacturing stability and reliability technology, deformation inspection and control technology, internal manufacturing Internet of things, connection between factory and group network, and network interconnection with external cooperative units. In the equipment layer, case studies mainly include: automatic measurement vision robot, robot assisted assembly, tightness detection robot, robot deburring and chamfering system, automatic bending equipment, robot stacking system, and welding robot.
Section 6.2.2: At the workshop level, enterprises from digital design, automatic processing, robot assembly, intelligent detection, and other aspects to build a digital chemical plant. This section will study the implementation path based on MES from workshop layer to construct a sustainable digital factory.
Comment #4: There is too many abbrevitations, all of them should be explained at the first use.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have added the explanation in all abbrevitations of this paper highlighted in yellow colour.
Comment #5: The English is sometimes weird, it looks like translated by some AI.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. About the English writing of the manuscript, we asked for advice from a native English speaker to revise the paper before submitting to this journal.
Comment #6: But overall, the paper is interesting and if it will be improved (better readability), I suggest it for publication.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments and recognition of this paper, and we have improved this paper from readability.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper presents an overall architecture of a sustainable digital factory for an automated warehouse based on the integration of ERP and WMS.
The proposed idea sounds interesting. However, the following comments should be clarified.
1. The contribution is not clear. In the introduction, the authors should try to explain their original idea and emphasize the unique contribution of this paper. What is your original idea? What is your contribution?
2. Fig. 3 only shows a small part of the figure. Please fix it.
3. On page 16, the subsection “6.2.1.14” should be “6.2.1.4.” Please fix it.
4. On page 22, the section “8. Conclusions” should be “7. Conclusions.” Please fix it.
5. In section 6 (i.e., case study), the experimental implementation is not clear. Although the authors claim that “the construction of the company’s sustainable digital factory started in 2003,” I cannot see any clues of the explicit implementation through reading the case study. How do you deploy your proposed architecture in the case study?
The authors should provide more details in subsection 6.2 to clarify the implementation of the case study, rather than the long text. How do you design/deploy each system/module in the case study?
6. A single discussion part should be provided to discuss the research findings and highlight the contribution of this study. What is the strength and weakness of your proposed method? The limitation of this study should also be discussed.
7. The conclusion part should be further enhanced to summarize the main findings of the manuscript. The directions for future work should be included.
8. Acronyms must be spelt in full during their first usage. Not all readers of the journal are familiar with them.
9. English needs a lot of work. There are lots of English errors, informal expressions, and typos across the manuscript. I strongly suggest the authors could read and check their paper several times before submission.
10. The format of the bibliography looks a bit messy. Please check the author’s guidelines to arrange your references.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer Comments
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Your critical and detailed comments and insights on our manuscript are greatly appreciated. These opinions are very valuable and helpful for the paper’s further improvement. We summit the new revised version together with the supplemental file responses to the reviewers’ comments for your further consideration. Below are our responses to the comments.
- Responses to comments of Reviewer #3:
Comment: This paper presents an overall architecture of a sustainable digital factory for an automated warehouse based on the integration of ERP and WMS. The proposed idea sounds interesting. However, the following comments should be clarified.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments and recognition of this paper.
Comment #1: The contribution is not clear. In the introduction, the authors should try to explain their original idea and emphasize the unique contribution of this paper. What is your original idea? What is your contribution?
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have added the contents of original idea and unique contribution of this paper in Section 1.3 highlighted in yellow colour.
The supplementary contents are as follows:
Section 1.3: Moreover, this paper mainly establishes a sustainable digital factory from the perspective of top-level framework, system model and industrial implementation. The original idea of this paper is mainly embodied in two aspects: automated warehouse based on integration of ERP and WMS, and construction of sustainable digital factory based on MES from an industrial realization. The unique contribution of this paper is as follows: through information integration with other application systems, enterprises can improve production efficiency, strengthen information management, shorten product production cycle and reduce manufacturing cost. Finally, by constructing the enterprise's sustainable digital factory, enterprise's market competitiveness is also can be improved.
Comment #2: Fig. 3 only shows a small part of the figure. Please fix it.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised figures 3.
Comment #3: On page 16, the subsection “6.2.1.14” should be “6.2.1.4.” Please fix it.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised the numbering of section 6.2.1.4.
Comment #4: On page 22, the section “8. Conclusions” should be “7. Conclusions.” Please fix it.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised the numbering of section7.
Comment #5: In section 6 (i.e., case study), the experimental implementation is not clear. Although the authors claim that “the construction of the company’s sustainable digital factory started in 2003,” I cannot see any clues of the explicit implementation through reading the case study. How do you deploy your proposed architecture in the case study? The authors should provide more details in subsection 6.2 to clarify the implementation of the case study, rather than the long text. How do you design/deploy each system/module in the case study?
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have added the contents of the relationship between proposed architecture and case study in section 6.2 highlighted in yellow colour.
The supplementary contents are as follows:
Section 6.2: This case analyzes the overall architecture of the sustainable digital factory pro-posed in Section 2, mainly covering four levels, namely, enterprise layer (Section 2.1), workshop layer (Section 2.2), control layer (Section 2.3), and equipment layer (Section 2.4). In the enterprise layer, case studies mainly include: enterprise production management, enterprise collaborative management, collaborative supply chain management based on order life cycle, and support information system. At the workshop layer, case studies mainly include: digital design, automatic machining, robot assembly, intelligent detection, automatic production line, and supporting information system. In the control layer, case studies mainly include: precision manufacturing stability and reliability technology, deformation inspection and control technology, internal manufacturing Internet of things, connection between factory and group network, and network interconnection with external cooperative units. In the equipment layer, case studies mainly include: automatic measurement vision robot, robot assisted assembly, tightness detection robot, robot deburring and chamfering system, automatic bending equipment, robot stacking system, and welding robot.
Comment #6 & #7: A single discussion part should be provided to discuss the research findings and highlight the contribution of this study. What is the strength and weakness of your proposed method? The limitation of this study should also be discussed. The conclusion part should be further enhanced to summarize the main findings of the manuscript. The directions for future work should be included.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have added the research findings, contribution, strength, weakness and future work in Section 7 highlighted in yellow colour.
The supplementary contents are as follows:
Section 7: The main contributions of this study are as follows: (1) an overall architecture of sustainable digital factory is constructed from the perspective of top-level design. (2) The method and technology of middle table is pro-posed for the integration of ERP and WMS for automated ware-house. (3) The industrial realization, implementation effect and application cases of sustainable digital factory based on MES are studied and given to improve production efficiency, strengthen information management, shorten product production cycle and reduce manufacturing cost for enterprises.
As this paper mainly studies from the top level design, overall framework, system model and other aspects of system engineering, it mainly uses qualitative analysis methods. Therefore, the main advantage of this paper is that it can guide enterprises to build a sustainable digital factory from a top-level and systematic perspective, and can reflect the systematic, comprehensive, hierarchical, step-by-step and structural nature of the research. At the same time, the limitation of this paper is the lack of quantitative analysis methods such as configuration, optimization and evaluation of the elements of the sustainable digital factory system. Therefore, in the future work, qualitative and quantitative analysis methods will be adopted to further study the construction of sustainable digital factory, such as the configuration, scheduling, optimization and evaluation of re-sources, manpower, equipment, systems, etc. in the automated warehouse.
Comment #8: Acronyms must be spelt in full during their first usage. Not all readers of the journal are familiar with them.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have added the full name of all abbrevitations in this paper highlighted in yellow colour.
Comment #9: English needs a lot of work. There are lots of English errors, informal expressions, and typos across the manuscript. I strongly suggest the authors could read and check their paper several times before submission.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. The grammatical or language-related errors in this paper have been corrected already. About the English writing of the manuscript, we asked for advice from a native English speaker to revise the paper before submitting to this journal.
Comment #10: The format of the bibliography looks a bit messy. Please check the author’s guidelines to arrange your references.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised it according to the reference format of “Sustainability” journal.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
After carrying out a detailed analysis on the implementation of the improvements suggested in the review report that I had previously issued, I verified that the authors implemented them well, and in full. In my opinion, the article now seems ready to be published, without the need to implement further changes. I congratulate the authors for their effort, especially in the strong increase in references they made, in the literature review parts, which was the most critical aspect pointed out in the previous review.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors resolved my queries.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
After re-analyzing for the second time the new version of the article in depth, I find that the authors have well implemented all the suggestions for improvement suggested in the previous review report. Therefore, it is my opinion that the article is ready to be published.
