Simulation-Based Study of the Resilience of Flexible Manufacturing Layouts Subject to Uncertain Demands of Product Variants

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The submitted manuscript "Simulation-based study of the resilience of flexible manufacturing layouts subject to uncertain demands of product variants" corresponds to the Journal's scope. The paper is devoted to flexible manufacturing.

It has a scientific novelty and practical relevance.

However, I can specify the following comments:

1.      I highly recommend using a traditional structure for research papers (e.g., Introduction and Literature Review, Research Methodology, Results and Discussion, and Conclusions). It will simplify readership and help better present a contribution to the science.

2.      Fig. 1 presents a relational graph of manufacturing system elements. The authors use a hierarchical structure to classify product variants, parts, machines, and machine types. However, fixtures significantly impact accuracy, productivity, and flexibility in manufacturing systems that deal with machining using drilling, milling, and boring cutting tools. In the presented study, the fixture as a component of the technological system is missed. For example, the flexible fixtures could be used for parts with similar design and technological features. It is unclear how to evaluate the presented structure. This issue needs detailed clarification.

 

3.      The discussion was missed in the manuscript. A comparison between the obtained results and similar studies or approaches of other scientists should be compared (with proper references).

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 1

Thank you for the review and the comments. Here we want to provide our responses to specific comments.

Response to comment 1:

We have reorganized and rewritten the headings to match this suggested flow. In particular, we have recognized and prepared new materials for the new section of Literature Review. Also, we have revised the heading of Section 5 to Simulation Setup, Results and Discussion.

Response to comment 2:

We agree that flexible fixtures can be relevant to this manufacturing system model. Our limitation factor is the control of the scope and details in system modeling. In response to this comment, we add a new paragraph (Lines 218 to 231) to acknowledge the relevance of flexible manufacturing with five new references.

Response to comment 3:

We have added a new Discussion section (Section 5.3), right after presenting the simulation results. In this section, we discuss the relevance of the proposed criticality analysis to the manufacturing practice, as well as the limitations of the study. Please note that the proposed concept of criticality analysis for uncertain demands and layout decisions is quite new, where we cannot find other studies for direct numerical comparison. The conceptual relevance of prior works is discussed in Literature Review.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper deals with product variants considering uncertainty using simulation models. It has some potential but needs significant improvements to meet the standards of the journal.

The comments are as follows:

Include in the abstract who can benefit of your work. In this way, you can attract more specific audience.

The reference list is outdated. Please incorporate recent work in the field. Product variants became hot topic with introduction of Industry 4.0/5.0 which you do not mention at all. See for example https://doi.org/10.14743/apem2019.4.343 and try to update the literature review with this or similar work.

The paper lacks discussion including comparison of your work with similar studies. The reader wants to know about the novelties that you bring into research field.

The conclusion is very weak. Please be more detailed about the limitations of your work followed by specific suggestion about further research avenues.

Best of luck in improving your paper! Looking forward for the revised version of the paper.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 2

Thank you for the review and the comments. Here we want to provide our responses to specific comments.

1. We have added two sentences in the Abstract on the note of “who can benefit”.
2. We have extended the reference list (adding 21 new references). In addition to the suggested reference (Medić, et al. 2019), we have added 5-6 other papers related to product variants and Industry 4.0. The relevant content is newly added in the second paragraph of the Introduction section (Lines 37-47).
3. We have added a new Discussion section (Section 5.3), right after presenting the simulation results. In this section, we discuss the relevance of the proposed criticality analysis to the manufacturing practice, as well as the limitations of the study. Please note that the proposed concept of criticality analysis for uncertain demands and layout decisions is quite new, where we cannot find other studies for direct numerical comparison. The conceptual relevance of prior works is discussed in Literature Review.
4. We have extended the Conclusions section. Following the comment by another reviewer, we compile two lists of bullet points. One list summarizes the intended contribution of the paper. Another list discusses the directions of future work.

Reviewer 3 Report

1) The list of references is too short, please add and describe more suitable researches from this issue. (e.g. Balog, M., et al: Optimization of time structures in manufacturing management by using scheduling software Lekin. TEM Journal, Seidelmann, T., & Mostaghim, S. Surrogate Functions and Digital Twin Simulation for Modern Facility Layout Planning, or Nabi, H. Z., Aized, T., & Riaz, F. Modeling, analysis and optimization of carousel-based flexible manufacturing system. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering)

2) The discussion chapter about obtained results is missing.

3) In the conclusion part of this article, please add summarization of your research in bullet

4) In the conclusion part please provide contribution to practice and science

5) In the whole article, please check the template formatting (e.g. line 302, 305, 306, etc.)

Author Response

Thank you for the review and the comments. Here we want to provide our responses to specific comments.

• 1) In the revised version, we have added 21 new references (including the three suggested references), which are highlighted in the revised text (mainly found in the Introduction and Literature Review sections).
• 2) We have added a new Discussion section (Section 5.3), right after presenting the simulation results. In this section, we discuss the relevance of the proposed criticality analysis to the manufacturing practice, as well as the limitations of the study.
• 3) and 4) We have extended the Conclusions section. Following this comment, we compile two lists of bullet points. One list summarizes the intended contribution of the paper. Another list discusses the directions of future work.
• 5) Thanks for pointing this out. We have checked and corrected the formatting issues.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors prepared answers to all my comments. I don't have new comments. The paper can be published in the present form.

Reviewer 2 Report

All of the suggestions proposed are adequately addressed. Therefore, I am more than happy to propose acceptance of the paper for the publication in this respectable journal.

Whish you all the best!

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

thank you very much for your revision. In my opinion, revised article is suitable for publication in present form.