Resource Management in FlexSim Modelling: Addressing Drawbacks and Improving Accuracy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I found the article to be very interesting and engaging. The author's use of the TRIZ concept of the resources to address a problem arising from the mechanics of discrete event simulation was a well-suited approach. This application of TRIZ provides a valuable contribution to the field of simulation and could be of interest to practitioners and researchers alike.

The article is well-written and structured, with clear explanations of the concepts and methodologies employed. The authors' use of examples to illustrate their points is particularly effective in helping to convey complex ideas.

Overall, I believe that this article makes a valuable contribution to the field of simulation and provides an interesting and well-structured approach to overcoming challenges in discrete event simulation using TRIZ. Therefore, I recommend it for publication in its current form.

Sincerely.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Good application of TRIZ to simulation to solve this contradiction! I enjoyed reading the paper; it was well presenteed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article, using the tutorial of FlexSim software, presents an example of 3D modelling simulation which shows that the use of 10 external resources can give rise to inaccurate waiting times in a queue.

The main concern is related to the experimental results. Normally, a real problem, based on collected data, should be solved. A software may be used, a model proposed and the real results compared to the simulated ones. Or, this article, if the case, should reorganise the information to better evidence the experimental component and then to compare the reality with the model. 

As it is drafted, the article seems an explanation of the software use and potentialities. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The following comments must be revised before acceptance for publication.
1. Page 2-line 63. The Figure 1 is confusing. No 3D concept is seen in Figure 1. Only simple elements are considered.
2. Page 3-line 64. Figures 2 and 3 only contain some settings, so there is no need to show them at all.
3. Page 7-line 177. The details of simulation modelling are lost. Rough descriptions are difficult for readers to understand their meaning.
4. The overall structure of the manuscript is chaotic. It is difficult to distinguish between related work and the authors’ own.
5. No comparison was made to observe the progressiveness of the methods reported.
6. Page 1-line 22. The summary and description of related work in the field are insufficient. The following related work of deep learning must be cited and discussed, including Influence of the distributed grounding layout for intercity trains on the ‘train-rail’ circumflux. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs. doi: 10.1109/TCSII.2022.3223984. Modeling of Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium for Electrolyte Solutions Based on COSMO-RS Interaction. Journal of Chemistry, 2022, 9070055. doi: 10.1155/2022/9070055. Analysis of stochastic process to model safety risk in construction industry. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 27(2), 87-99. https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2021.14108. "Pseudo RGB-D Face Recognition," in IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 22, no. 22, pp. 21780-21794, 15 Nov.15, 2022, doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2022.3197235. “Spectrum interference-based two-level data augmentation method in deep learning for automatic modulation classification,” Neural Computing & Applications, vol. 33, pp. 7723-7745, 2020.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Thank you for your submission. The contribution to the field is clear and your use of clear documentation and illustration is appreciated. In order to further improve the article, I have the following recommendations. First, I would suggest amending the title to: Resource Management in FlexSim Modelling: Addressing Drawbacks and Improving Accuracy. This title better reflects the main argument of the paper and provides a clearer indication of the content. 

Next, I would recommend slight revision for readability and use of only third person whenever possible. Inclusion of additional sources to support the need for the study in the introduction would also bolster the argument.  

Further recommendations would include certain slight revisions per section. For instance, the introduction of the submitted article provides some background information on the concept of resources and its application in TRIZ methodology and FlexSim simulation modeling. However, there are some aspects that could be improved to make the introduction stronger. 

Firstly, the introduction could benefit from a clearer statement of the research problem and its significance. While the author briefly mentions the drawbacks of using external resources in simulation modeling, there is no clear indication of why this issue is important and what the implications are. The introduction would benefit from a more explicit statement of the problem and its significance, such as why inaccurate waiting times in a queue are problematic and what the consequences are. 

Secondly, the introduction could be more structured and focused. The author jumps between discussing the concept of resources in general, the TRIZ methodology, and FlexSim simulation modeling, making it challenging for readers to follow the main argument. The introduction could be improved by organizing the information into a more focused and structured format, with clear subsections that introduce each of these concepts separately. 

Finally, the introduction could benefit from a clearer statement of the research objectives and the proposed solution. While the author mentions that the study explores the use of a timer to ensure customers leave the waiting line after 200 seconds, the research objectives and proposed solution could be more explicitly stated. The introduction should provide readers with a clear understanding of what the study aims to achieve and how it proposes to do so. 

With regards to the literature review, the introduction could be strengthened by providing more context and a clear research question or problem statement. It may be helpful to introduce the concept of resources and TRIZ more gradually, starting with a general definition and building up to the specific examples and applications. Additionally, stating the research question or problem statement early on would help orient the reader and establish the purpose of the paper. 

To improve the literature review, the author could provide more synthesis and analysis of the sources, rather than simply summarizing them. It would be helpful to connect the different sources and ideas together, rather than presenting them as disjointed examples. The review could also benefit from more recent and diverse sources, as many of the references cited are from the 2000s or earlier and come from a narrow range of authors. Additionally, the author could expand on the limitations or gaps in the existing literature to justify the need for their research. 

The conclusion of the article is informative, but it could benefit from some improvements. Firstly, the paragraph could begin by summarising the key findings of the study, such as the importance of considering resources in simulation modelling and the potential side effects of measurement error. Next, the paragraph could provide a clear and concise recommendation for readers on how to utilise TRIZ concepts of resources to improve the quality of their simulation results. This could include a call-to-action to encourage readers to acquire knowledge of resources in TRIZ and to use them effectively. Additionally, the paragraph could highlight the wider implications of this research, such as how the application of resources could potentially improve decision-making in management settings.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The article has been revised and improved

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The revision is unsatisfactory. The author did not understand the review comments and only provided perfunctory responses without corresponding modifications. The author should carefully read the comments and provide corresponding modifications. At present, the organization and writing of papers are still chaotic. A large number of experiments need to be supplemented. Many technical details need to be improved. The operation of software is unnecessary. A description of the algorithm and testing environment is necessary. This paper still needs to be thoroughly revised. The current version is more like an engineering report than an academic paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf