The Synergy Model of Quality Tools and Methods and Its Influence on Process Performance and Improvement
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is an interesting and promising material for a publication. Unfortunately it needs to be rethinking before publication. There are r soma issues to improve:
11. It is not clear, why authors use TQM as an quality tool. Considering the other tools, such as eg. Pareto or Ishikawa the difference is quite big. The literature review part should define the tools properly. Moreover in table the description part as well as in table 6, the TQM is not used, so it was not implemented/tested?
22. In table 6 (p. 17) as one of the implemented quality instrument the “change material” was suggested. It is not a tool, but the final effect of process improvement.
33. The proposed model in very general and in my opinion does not contribute much to the topic. From the practical point of view I do not have any information form the model how to implement the instruments, in which order or which instruments are better to which localizations or processes. That art needs to be rethink.
44. The performance measures of the processes were described in Table 1. And the results are in the table 6. It is not clear how the calculations were done. Did authors use all the performance measures from table 1 to assess the results of the individual process (eg. Production) or only performance measure form table 1 (production) was assigned to the specific process? In both cases it is confusing.
56. It is not clear, why and how, authors use the internal audits or promotional fundings (table one) as a good measurement of the process performances eg. product packaging (table 6) or which tools were use to improve the performance of processes?
67. The H0 contains references to synergies, but the theoretical as well as practical part of the study do not exploit it. There is only an information that some tools were used. The only thing that can be demonstrated with this approach is process improvement. There is no proof of the synergy.
78. The collected data do not test the hypothesis/do not differentiate the results due to their use in individual divisions and do not in any way indicate differences in external requirements. The external requirements are mentioned in H0 but there is data that discus that matter.
89. There is no explanation (on the background of literature revive) what kind of quality tools are available and what is a quality tool (TQM, six sigma, lean?). Also the created model does not contain all the tools described in the theoretical part. Moreover authors do not explain it.
910 The index of functionality – table 2, formula 2. If = (a*kv)/(b*kv) so if=a/b Why there is the Kv in the formula, when it dose no statistical meaning?
111. In table 3. For the promotion there was more money spend that planed and it was assessed as a good thing and the improvement of the process (Effective and functional). I do not understand, which quality tools made it happened and how, through which improvements?
112. In table 3., the internal audits. The Ke(1) = 1.08 means that it was planed 25 audits (data from table 1) and it was made 2 more than planned. Probably due to the extra problems or changes during the year. That increase should not be taken as an effective and functional process. And like above I do not understand from the description in the paper, the relation of the implemented tools to the performance of the auditing processes.
113. Ther is a sentence: “We considered the most important factors geographical location, corporate culture, legislative norms and laws, and patterns of customer behavior” (p. 15-16, line 539-541. (…) “on the performance of the processes”. There is no data provided to which indicate such dependencies in the paper.
Summarizing, I think it is a nice case study material, but the quantitate date and the statistics (or the lack of statistical tests for the hypothesis verification) are the weaker side of the publication.
Some other issues to consider:
Page 9. The “STN” should be explained
Line 215 and others – Authors use America, buy companies were in both North and South America.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we accepted all your comments.
- We explained using of the TQM approach. We supplemented quality tools and methods.
- The literature review was repaired with new literature sources and explained the difference between tools methods, and approaches.
- In Table 6 (p. 17) was the quality tool “change material”, we replaced the 5S method.
- The proposed model was repaired and explained.
- The performance measures in Table 1 are entered data. The results are in Table 6. The calculations were described.
- internal audits and promotion we explained.
- The hypothesis was classified as H1.
- We repaired the index of functionality.
- External factors were deleted because we did not have quantitative data for evaluation.
- We explained all the problems in the Discussion and in the Conclusion of processes.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Strengthen the theoretical framework by clearly linking the proposed methods to underlying principles in e Quality instruments and Process Performance, thereby supporting the research gaps identified.
2. Detail the selection criteria for datasets and justify the choice of algorithms, ensuring a clear connection between the research question and the methodology.
3. Discuss the implications of using sensitive or proprietary data, especially in the context, where data decentralization plays a crucial role.
4. Provide a deeper discussion on the limitations of the proposed approach and potential strategies to mitigate these challenges.
5. Elaborate on future research directions, specifically how emerging trends in AI and machine learning could influence the evolution of data-driven modeling for fault diagnosis.
6. Improve the overall clarity and organization of the manuscript. Ensure that each section logically flows into the next, and technical jargon is explained or minimized for a broader audience.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageFine
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we accepted all your comments.
- Strengthen the theoretical framework - we supplemented theoretical information and literature resources.
- We changed the main hypothesis from H0 to H1 and changed the text it was the main research question and we described the methodology.
- We described all the data of the research.
- The discussion was supplemented and the new model was repaired.
- We wrote the significance of the new model in future research.
- We changed the structure of the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAbstract Section
1) The core results of the model of the Quality Tools and Methods Synergy should be unveiled in the Abstract Section.
Introduction Section
2) The quality problems within the mother manufacturing company calling for the need to develop the model of Quality tools and Methods Synergy to be implemented in this organisations should be echoed in the Introduction section.
3) The research gap within the Quality Management field, which this study intend to fill, should also be echoed in the Introduction section.
Literature Review Section
4) Summary of lessons learnt based on the literature review and the limitation(s) of the existing quality techniques should be echoed in the last paragraph of this section.
5) Literature on Kanban System and Lean/ Lean Tools should be removed as they are not part of the Quality Tools and Instruments.
Materials and Method Section
6) The nature of the data collected, and time horizon of the data should be stated in this section.
7) The expressions for the parameters in equations (1), (2), (3) and (4) should be provided in the manuscript.
8) Kanban, 5S and Layout Techniques should be removed from the manuscripts as they are not Quality tools (they can only be retained unless the authors scientifically justify why they are linking them to Quality tools).
9) The Null and the Alternative Hypothesis should be clearly stated in the manuscript.
Results Section
10) Elaborate on the discussion of the Result of Table 6.
11) The result of the reconfiguration/ rearrangement of the layout is missing in the manuscript.
12) The result of the material flow, claim process, material order, downtime, marking of space, cleaning, risks, safety, and employee training as echoed in Table 6 are missing in the manuscript.
Conclusion Section
13) The core contribution of the study to the body of knowledge (towards addressing the research gap identified by the authors) should be echoed in this section.
14) The future research work that could emanate from this study should be echoed in the last paragraph of this section.
General Comment
15) The manuscript should be language-edited to improve the language quality.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageLanguage-editing of the manuscript is required.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, Thank you for your comments, we accepted all your comments.
- The core results of the model of the Quality Tools and Methods Synergy are filled in Abstract Section.
2. The quality problems were introduced in the Introduction section.
3.The research gap within the Quality Management field is in the Introduction section.
4. A summary of lessons learned based on the literature review was repeated.
5. Those literature of Kanban System and Lean must to stay in the article because we are writing about it.
6. We fill out the information about data collection.
7. In formulas (1), (2), (3) and (4) are determined parameters.
8. Kanban, 5S and Layout is not removed from the manuscripts, because complete article is orientated to quality tools and methods, was changed the title of article.
9. In the article is only an alternative Hypothesis, because we can not evaluate the hypothesis by statistical testing.
10. Information in Table 6 were repaired.
11. We filled out the layout of production process. Sorry, we forgot this part. 12. we changed the data in table 6, because we have no data for results presentation.
13. We filled out the core of the contribution.
14. We repeated the future benefits of the research.
15. We repaired the language quality.
