Methodology to Optimize Quality Costs in Manufacturing Based on Multi-Criteria Analysis and Lean Strategies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This new version is way clearer than the previous one. I would like to thank the authors for their efforts. There are still some minor issues listed below, and I think that the English should be improved (for example use direct discourse).

 

Figure 2: objectIve: (missing I in the central node)

Equation 1: again, what is k?
I think that the authors want to express the fact that aij=1/aji

comparison matrixes ->  comparison matriCes
 
What is a "responsible"? Do you mean a manager?

Table 7: bad formatting: I guess the 10 last columns of the lower part of the table describe dependecies between parts but what are the other columns of the lower table?
They look like the transposed matrix of part vs criteria but row names (Part x) is misplaced.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is interesting and generally, it deserves to be published with some revisions that are suggested below:

1. Can you describe why so confusion for the different results after you apply different methodologies of AHP, ANP, and Lean, and what is the correlation between them?
2. How do you get the last significant parameter after applying multicriteria processes which is the cost of reengineering to improve quality in the parts?
3. Which principle do you apply for decision-making Lean methodology [9,25,27,31,43], there are optimize the whole, eliminate waste, deliver fast by managing flow?
4. What is the based on for the analyzing effort-impact matrix? Lean Manufacturing? Strategy?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your attention to revise the article that will be easy to understand for reader.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper describes a case study where individual parts are ranked w.r.t. multiple criteria using AHP and ANP.

My overall opinion is that this papers needs lots of improvements on both form and content.

First, the authors should clarify and strengthen the originality of the paper. The current content only describes a basic application of two well-known methods. And even if the paper contains no less than 43 references, only seven are actually cited in the paper. The authors insist on the Excel implementation but may have missed existing implementations such as https://bpmsg.com/ahp/

Goepel, K.D. (2018). Implementation of an Online Software Tool for the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP-OS). International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Vol. 10 Issue 3 2018, pp 469-487,
https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v10i3.590

Moreover, there are serious inconsistencies in the way the case study is described in section 2.1.

Criteria definition will be obtained through ERP system of a manufacturer. The report will indicate the parts with the highest failure rates during the first 2 years of the lifecycle of several parts.

Ok so criteria = parts (sounds weird but why not)

Definition of the alternatives (intangible costs) and will be obtained through the Delphi Method [2] implemented in Managers of the organization. Alternatives selected by managers are shown in Table 3.

and alternatives = intangible costs...

But then, in Figures 3 and 4, criteria and alternatives are switched...

Concerning the equations, none of the variables are explained: what are aij, aik, ... they look like matrix indices but of which matrix? i, j, k should be defined, and what is "y" in "for i, j y k = 1, 2, 3...n"

Same thing in equation 2, what are m, lambda_max? why 1.98?

In equation 3: what are x_i, g, and p (which is a parameter in lhs but never appears in rhs...)

In figure 10, why are some parts connected to other parts (eg: part 1 is connected (value 1) to itself but also to part 5)? Because there are dominance relationships between parts? Some explanation would be appreciated.

Figures 9, 11, and 12 are in Spanish. Moreover, Figures 11 and 12 are console screenshots, that should be converted to proper tables.

Finally the English is very poor and I strongly recommend the paper to be reviewed by a native English speaker.

 

Some of the typos

abstract
, however only tangible costs useD to be
assures its accuracy -> ensures its accuracy

section 1

It is a fact that those companies that have high quality costs are losing competitive-
ness and its reputation may be seriously affected.
->
It is a fact that those companies that have high quality costs are losing competitive-
ness and THEIR reputation may be seriously affected.

in competitive advantage position in com-
parison with its competitors
->
in competitive advantage position in com-
parison with THEIR competitors

 that makes necessary its use.
 ->
  that makes its use necessary.
  
  Firstly, it is downloaded data
  ->
  Firstly, download data
  
  . Additionally, it is
applied
->
. Additionally, apply

section 2

comparisons in pairs
->
pairwise comparisons

"Numerical scales reflect judgments that due to their complexity may not be correctly expressed in
words." More importantly, numerical scales allow to project alternatives on a common scale.

Figure 1: "Random CoNsistency Index"

"Definition of the alternatives (intangible costs) and (???) will be obtained through the Del-
phi Method [2] implemented in (???) Managers of the organization"

 

   

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript proposes a decision-making system that prioritizes the actions in quality departments within manufacturing plans, considering the total cost of the quality and optimizing the time to market and improving customer satisfaction. The manuscript is well structured and presented and the idea is interesting.

 

Some issues that the authors may consider are the following:

 

What is the contribution of the manuscript in the Scientific area? It is not clear what is proposed by the authors and what has already been established from the literature. The authors used methods that already exist in the literature. In addition, I am wondering if this strategy, that the authors propose, can be generalized and used in other problems as well. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The literature review presented is very poor. Although there are 43 references listed at the end of the text, only 7 of them were actually cited in the article. The authors were not able to present to the reader, therefore, the state of the art on the subject. Nor were they able to make clear the contribution of the method to such a state of the art.

The authors state that "the aim of this study is to develop a decision support system that identifies all quality costs, tangible and intangible and provides an accurate and dynamic tool for decision making process in quality departments within manufacturing organizations". The authors, however, fail to show that the use of the AHP and ANP methods "provides an accurate tool for decision making process". The accuracy of the results is not proven.

Other minor issues: Some figures are in Spanish; Authors should avoid using the first person ("we"), which makes the text too informal.