Evaluating Lean Facility Layout Designs Using a BWM-Based Fuzzy ELECTRE I Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors presented an improved Best-Worst method based on fuzzy ELECTRE I to determine the optimal lean facility layout design. The approach is generally correct, but the effectiveness of the improved method requires a more detailed justification. Therefore, I propose the following improvements to the manuscript.

1. The rationale for choosing the ELECTRE I method for evaluating alternatives is weak. It is not clear why the authors consider this particular method to be the most appropriate for solving the problem of optimal lean facility layout design. I propose to justify the choice of this method in more detail.

2. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the new method should be carried out not only by comparison with the improved method of Ke & Chen (2012), but also with other, more modern MСDMs. I propose to perform a sensitivity analysis of the improved method by comparing the results of a numerical example with the results of calculations by other MSDMs.

3. The authors evaluated the effectiveness of the proposed improved method using an abstract numerical example. On the other hand, the improved method is proposed to be used to solve a very specific problem. It is not clear why the authors did not use a real example. I suggest describing in detail the lean facility layout design alternatives. In this case, readers would be able to evaluate the correctness of ranking alternatives by the improved method compared to the previous method.

4. I propose to exclude references from the abstract and conclusion. A description of the proposed improvements and the shortcomings of the previous methods suffices in these parts of the manuscript.

5. The material of the manuscript, references in the text and the references should preferably be issued using the Journal template and the MDPI style.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

A scientifically sound and well prepared paper.

The introduction provides sufficient background of the research.

Literature review is comprehensive and includes relevant, up-to-date references.

Selection of BWM and ELECTRE from a great variety of MCDM methods is motivated. The only question arises why do you use namely ELECTRE I (not ELECTRE II, III, IV, TRI or IS). Could you please briefly explain?

Methodology is well explained.

Numerical example is presented. Numerous tables in Appendixes are useful for real life applications.

List of references, as I have mentioned previously, is comprehensive.

I have no essential critical comments. To my opinion, the paper is worth to be published.

Please, improve formatting of the paper according to Journal's style. 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors provided comprehensive responses to my comments and considered all my suggestions.

I recommend accept the manuscript in present forms.

Author Response

Thank you very much.