Enhancing Scrap Reduction in Electric Motor Manufacturing for the Automotive Industry: A Case Study Using the PDCA (Plan–Do–Check–Act) Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overview and general recommendation:

This is an interesting case study of using continuous improvement methodologies to reduce scrap and improve manufacturing efficiency in a real production environment. The written descriptions needs some improvement in clarity and the novelty of the study is not explained. See detailed comments below.

Major comments:

1) Novelty: The manuscript details a real improvement project with tangible results. However, the methods used are all well-established and nothing new or novel was presented. The authors should try to emphasize any new knowledge or contributions established by this work.

2) Process descriptions: The descriptions of several key steps in the manufacturing process were not sufficient. For example, the assembly considered for this case study is described by only one sentence and 3 static pictures on page 2. More details are needed for the readers to understand what is going on. Is the lamination process putting the end caps on the structure shown in Fig. 1? What are the end caps made from, and how are they manufactured? (This is relevant to understanding why one side has burs and the other side does not, as mentioned later in the manuscript.) Is the epoxy coating covering every surface, or just the lamination end caps? A clarifying sentence that the wires are wrapped around the coated lamination end caps would also be helpful here.

 

What is meant by “inverting the lamination” (line 481)? Is it just flipping the other side of the lamination end caps so that the burs face inwards and do not damage the wires?

3) Literature review: Section 3 contains useful information about relevant literature in the topic. However, it does not flow in a logical way, and it feels like the topics change back and forth. It should be reorganized to make it easier to read. Sub-sections 3.2 and 3.3 both have the same title, and it is not clear why they are separate. 

Minor comments:

4) Acronyms: There are many acronyms or other shortened terms used in the manuscript. The authors should define all acronyms before first use in the manuscript and also in the abstract. Specifically, “PCDA” and “hi-pot” are used in the abstract (page 1) but not defined before they appear. Other terms such as “SIPOC” (line 110), “5W1H” (Table 1), “5W + 2H” (line 177), and “PFMEA” (Table 3) are not defined in the text.

 

5) Figure 9: The image quality of this figure should be improved.

 

6) Figure 11: The caption for this figure does not seem to match what is in the text. It appears to be the equipment for applying the epoxy coating, not for testing the peel-off of the coating.

 

7) Length: The manuscript is quite long. Several of the discussions and figures/tables could be simplified and reduced to get to the important details faster.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Typos and grammar: There are several instances of minor misspellings and grammatical errors throughout that should be fixed. For example, there are several unnecessary instances of the word “of” or “on” in lines 75-79. There should be a period after the abbreviation “et al.” (pages 3-4). The word “de” is used instead of “the” in several instances (e.g., line 240).

 

On line 352, the sentence “To investigate the cause of low detachment force, two targeted were conducted” seems to be missing a key word.

Author Response

For research article

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary        
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files. 

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: Novelty: The manuscript details a real improvement project with tangible results. However, the methods used are all well-established and nothing new or novel was presented. The authors should try to emphasize any new knowledge or contributions established by this work.
Response 1: An addition was made in the conclusions section, where the contribution made by this study is emphasized. It is mentioned to be a novel application of the PDCA approach, adapting the “Do” and “Check” phases to include specialized testing procedures to identify high-power problems in the armature manufacturing process. This approach was not found in the literature for the solution of this type of problems, which consolidates its novelty. It is also mentioned how what was achieved in the implementation can serve as a tool to inspire improvements in similar industries and how the automotive industry presents great growth in regards to electric motors, which contributes a lot to the scalability of what has been achieved in the company and presented in this study (lines 621-632).
Comments 2: Process descriptions: The descriptions of several key steps in the manufacturing process were not sufficient. For example, the assembly considered for this case study is described by only one sentence and 3 static pictures on page 2. More details are needed for the readers to understand what is going on. Is the lamination process putting the end caps on the structure shown in Fig. 1? What are the end caps made from, and how are they manufactured? (This is relevant to understanding why one side has burs and the other side does not, as mentioned later in the manuscript.) Is the epoxy coating covering every surface, or just the lamination end caps? A clarifying sentence that the wires are wrapped around the coated lamination end caps would also be helpful here. What is meant by “inverting the lamination” (line 481)? Is it just flipping the other side of the lamination end caps so that the burs face inwards and do not damage the wires?
Response 2: Agree. To address this observation, the following changes were made:

(a) A detailed description of the sub-processes involved in the problem addressed in this study was added. This aims to clarify doubts related to the layers that make up the armature, how they are manufactured, and their origin. It also clarifies how the epoxy layer is created on the armature, how much it covers, and how the layer looks in its original form. Finally, the process of winding the armature is also mentioned (lines 79-98)

(b) To clarify some concepts considered in this added paragraph, important parts of the armature were identified in Figures 1, 2, and 3.

c) To explain the concept of reversing the lamination, an explanation of this process was added in section 4.1.2.5 (lines 479-480 and 496-499)

Comments 3: Literature review: Section 3 contains useful information about relevant literature in the topic. However, it does not flow in a logical way, and it feels like the topics change back and forth. It should be reorganized to make it easier to read. Sub-sections 3.2 and 3.3 both have the same title, and it is not clear why they are separate.

Response 3: Agree. To address this observation, the literature review section was extensively reorganized. The aim of this reorganization is to improve the readability of this section.

Comments 4: Acronyms: There are many acronyms or other shortened terms used in the manuscript. The authors should define all acronyms before first use in the manuscript and also in the abstract. Specifically, “PCDA” and “hi-pot” are used in the abstract (page 1) but not defined before they appear. Other terms such as “SIPOC” (line 110), “5W1H” (Table 1), “5W + 2H” (line 177), and “PFMEA” (Table 3) are not defined in the text.
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We have predefined the following words:
PDCA.- Line 49
MSW.- Row 3 of the introduction
Hi-pot.- Line 68
DSC.- Line 242, 592-593
CONACYT.- Line 648-649
SIPOC.- Line 135
5S.- Line 136
5W + 2H.- Line 191-192
PFMEA.- Between lines 216-217

Comments 5: Figure 9: The image quality of this figure should be improved.

Response 5: Agree. Done.

Comments 6: Figure 11: The caption for this figure does not seem to match what is in the text. It appears to be the equipment for applying the epoxy coating, not for testing the peel-off of the coating.

Response 6: Agree. Done. The caption for the figure was changed.

Comments 7: Length: The manuscript is quite long. Several of the discussions and figures/tables could be simplified and reduced to get to the important details faster.

Response 7: Agree. The reorganization of the literature review section allowed for the simplification of the information contained in a table, which was subsequently eliminated. Several control charts were also replaced with more robust statistical tests (hypothesis tests), further simplifying the manuscript. The figures of the laminations with and without burrs were merged into a single figure, which further allowed for the compaction of the document. However, other suggested corrections required additional space, and the manuscript could only be reduced by only one page (from 23 to 22 pages).

3. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language
Point 1: Typos and grammar: There are several instances of minor misspellings and grammatical errors throughout that should be fixed. For example, there are several unnecessary instances of the word “of” or “on” in lines 75-79. There should be a period after the abbreviation “et al.” (pages 3-4). The word “de” is used instead of “the” in several instances (e.g., line 240). On line 352, the sentence “To investigate the cause of low detachment force, two targeted were conducted” seems to be missing a key word.
Response 1:    Regarding the unnecessary instances of the word "of" and "on" in lines 75-79, that section of the text was completely rewritten (lines 76-78). A period was put in the abbreviations et al. where it was needed. The word “de” used instead of “the” in several instances was fixed. But, to ensure good writing in English, a thorough language review was carried out by an external service. Regarding the missing word in the sentence "To investigate the cause of low detachment force, two targeted were conducted” this has already been placed (line 361)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on a review of the submitted article, I have identified several critical areas that warrant the recommendation for rejection of this submission.

Below is a detailed review.

Methodological Concerns: The article employs the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) methodology to address scrap reduction in electric motor manufacturing. While PDCA is a recognized approach, the application as described in the article lacks innovation and does not significantly advance the existing body of knowledge. The study's methodology seems to replicate common practices without offering novel insights or significantly improving upon them.

Data Analysis and Interpretation: The data presented, particularly around the hi-pot testing failures and the improvements achieved through various interventions, is not compellingly analyzed. The conclusions drawn appear to be overly optimistic without sufficient statistical validation to substantiate the claimed improvements. The lack of rigorous statistical analysis to confirm the efficacy of the PDCA interventions undermines the credibility of the findings.

Literature Review: While the article attempts to contextualize its research within the broader literature, it falls short in critically engaging with contemporary studies. The literature review does not adequately situate the study within the current research landscape, failing to highlight how the present work addresses a gap or advances our understanding of scrap reduction in electric motor manufacturing.

Practical Implications and Scalability: The article suggests improvements that led to a reduction in scrap rates; however, it does not thoroughly discuss the practical implications of implementing these changes across different contexts or scales. The case study's specifics limit its generalizability, and the article does not sufficiently explore how these findings might be applied in varied manufacturing environments or sectors.

Innovativeness and Contribution to the Field: The primary criterion for publication in our journal is the contribution of new knowledge or innovative approaches to the field. Unfortunately, this article does not meet this criterion as it primarily documents the application of a well-known methodology to a specific case without offering substantive innovations or insights that could influence future research or practice.

In conclusion, while the efforts to reduce scrap in electric motor manufacturing are commendable, this article does not meet the publication criteria of significant contribution to the field, methodological rigor, and innovative insights. Therefore, it is with regret that I must recommend the rejection of this submission. Future submissions could be strengthened by addressing these concerns, particularly by incorporating more robust statistical analysis, exploring the scalability of the interventions, and highlighting the study's unique contributions to the field of manufacturing efficiency and waste reduction.

The article also contains many formal shortcomings.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

For research article     Response to Reviewer 2 Comments     Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted in the re-submitted file.      1. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors Comments 1: “Methodological Concerns: The article employs the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) methodology to address scrap reduction in electric motor manufacturing. While PDCA is a recognized approach, the application as described in the article lacks innovation and does not significantly advance the existing body of knowledge. The study's methodology seems to replicate common practices without offering novel insights or significantly improving upon them” Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, an addition was made in the conclusions section, where the contribution made by this study is emphasized. It is mentioned to be a novel application of the PDCA approach, adapting the “Do” and “Check” phases to include specialized testing procedures to identify high-power problems in the armature manufacturing process. This approach was not found in the literature for the solution of this type of problem, which consolidates its novelty. It is also mentioned how what was achieved in the implementation can serve as a tool to inspire improvements in similar industries and how the automotive industry presents great growth in regards to electric motors, which contributes a lot to the scalability of what has been achieved in the company and presented in this study (lines 621-632).   Comments 2: “Data Analysis and Interpretation: The data presented, particularly around the hi-pot testing failures and the improvements achieved through various interventions, is not compellingly analyzed. The conclusions drawn appear to be overly optimistic without sufficient statistical validation to substantiate the claimed improvements. The lack of rigorous statistical analysis to confirm the efficacy of the PDCA interventions undermines the credibility of the findings.”. Response 2: We are agreeing with this comment. To support the implemented changes and provide statistical analysis that backs up and/or validates the improvements, some statistical tools were replaced with others that, based on the sampling technique, allowed for hypothesis testing to contrast whether the mean of the variable under study (breaking force) actually showed a change before and after the improvements under study. The statistical analyses shown in Figures 19, 21, and 24 were included. The conclusions related to the results of these statistical tests were also included in the text after the aforementioned figures.   Comments 3: “Literature Review: While the article attempts to contextualize its research within the broader literature, it falls short in critically engaging with contemporary studies. The literature review does not adequately situate the study within the current research landscape, failing to highlight how the present work addresses a gap or advances our understanding of scrap reduction in electric motor manufacturing.” Response 3: Agree. To address this observation, the literature review section was extensively reorganized. The aim of this reorganization is to improve the readability of this section.   Comments 4: “Practical Implications and Scalability: The article suggests improvements that led to a reduction in scrap rates; however, it does not thoroughly discuss the practical implications of implementing these changes across different contexts or scales. The case study's specifics limit its generalizability, and the article does not sufficiently explore how these findings might be applied in varied manufacturing environments or sectors.” Response 4: Agree. To address this observation, lines 621-632 were added to explain the practical implications and scalability.   Comments 5: “Innovativeness and Contribution to the Field: The primary criterion for publication in our journal is the contribution of new knowledge or innovative approaches to the field. Unfortunately, this article does not meet this criterion as it primarily documents the application of a well-known methodology to a specific case without offering substantive innovations or insights that could influence future research or practice.”. Response 5: We are agreeing with this comment. But, we would very much like to consider the following points: a) This article not only addresses a critical issue in the automotive industry – scrap reduction in electric motor manufacturing – but also employs a novel and valuable methodology, offering a practical contribution to the ongoing debates within the readership journal.  b) It is worth noting that a quick search in the Applied Sciences journal revealed at least three articles that consider the use of the PDCA cycle as a tool for improvement in the industry. This supports the potential interest that this manuscript may have among the journal's readership. c) The dynamic automotive sector demands high-quality, yet affordable vehicles. Manufacturers must strike a delicate balance between these competing priorities, making scrap reduction a paramount concern. Our case study delves into this crucial issue, focusing on reducing scrap in the production of electric motor armatures, a key component impacting overall efficiency and production costs. In our article, we clarify this with the next new sentence in the conclusions section: “In addition, the automotive industry, particularly the electric vehicle segment in China, is experiencing rapid growth. The presented case study offers valuable insights into a critical aspect of electric motor production (scrap reduction) relevant to this expanding market. By showcasing a successful implementation, the case study can be a starting point for other manufacturers in the region or globally facing similar challenges (lines 627-632)”.  d) The study leverages the PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) methodology, offering a structured and replicable approach to tackle the problem of scrap reduction. We go beyond simply describing the implementation; we meticulously analyze the results and lessons learned, providing valuable insights and a practical guide for other manufacturers seeking to emulate our success. For all the aforementioned, we believe our work holds significant value for the journal's readership, actively participating in the ongoing discussions about improving efficiency in the automotive industry. By offering a demonstrably effective methodology for scrap reduction and production optimization, our article directly addresses this pertinent topic   Regarding the fact that the article also contains many formal deficiencies, it is worth mentioning that the document was subject to a grammatical and style review with an expert specialized in the English language.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Remarks

 

1. the use of abbreviations without previously being explained (see from the title and abstract "PDCA", the explanation is only in the key words, "IATF" - line 102, "SIPOC matrix" - line 110, etc.)

2. I don't see the connection between the content of the article "...minimize the scrap generated by process variability in a multinational company manufacturing electric motors for the automotive industry..." with "bolster its military industrial power" and the way the first citation is made.

3. the article under review is a study not a project: see line 77 -78 "Ultimately, the project aims to enhance quality by minimizing scrap generated 77 during armature manufacturing." line 175 "Following subsections describe how each PDCA phase was applied in this project"

4. inconsistency in the way figures are referred to in the text. (eg: Figures 1-3, see fig. 5, as seen in figure 6, etc.).

5. the way figure 6 is presented is not related to the article (what significance do the notations from 4.1 to 8.9 have with the one presented by the article). It is just an image from the standard.

6. inconsistency of use and in writing the units of measure, the international system (IS) must be used (eg: table 3 - 6 Kgf, line 248 of 6 kgf, table 4, etc.)

7, "Worm gear velocity" has no way of having "Seconds" as a unit of measure (by definition velocity is distance / time)

8 in IS: "Kilovolts, Kv" is kV, "Kpa" is kPa, unit for force N

8. Line 341-342 "This consistent performance lays the foundation for developing reliable improvement plans [29]." is not properly positioned, in the middle of the process of explaining Figures 12-17.

9. starting from line 439 "Cpk" is used which is not defined in the previous text, I found "Ppk" the error must be corrected.

10. Figure 34 is not correctly numbered line 580 "Figure 4."

11. The article should end with the authors' conclusions, not with discussions

12. In the final chapter (conclusions) there are no references to other studies, they must be presented in the introduction, see lines 597-607.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted in the re-submitted file.

1. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors.

Comments 1: “the use of abbreviations without previously being explained (see from the title and abstract "PDCA", the explanation is only in the key words, "IATF" - line 102, "SIPOC matrix" - line 110, etc.)”.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have predefined the following words:

PDCA.- Line 49

MSW.- Row 3 of the introduction

Hi-pot.- Line 68

DSC.- Line 242, 592-593

CONACYT.- Line 648-649

SIPOC.- Line 135

5S.- Line 136

5W + 2H.- Line 191-192

PFMEA.- Between lines 216-217

 

Comments 2: “I don't see the connection between the content of the article "...minimize the scrap generated by process variability in a multinational company manufacturing electric motors for the automotive industry..." with "bolster its military industrial power" and the way the first citation is made”.

Response 2: We are agreeing with this comment. To better connect with the content of the article, we modified the first 9 lines of the introduction. We placed specific emphasis on waste reduction as a strategy for organizations to reduce costs and achieve sustainability. As a result of this change, the first two references were also modified.

Comments 3: “The article under review is a study not a project: see line 77 -78 "Ultimately, the project aims to enhance quality by minimizing scrap generated 77 during armature manufacturing." line 175 "Following subsections describe how each PDCA phase was applied in this project"

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We have made the following changes:

Study. - line 99.

Study. - line 188.

Comments 4: “inconsistency in the way figures are referred to in the text. (eg: Figures 1-3, see fig. 5, as seen in figure 6, etc.)”

Response 4: We are agreeing with this comment. We reference all figures consistently. Some exceptions were made because data needs to be specified in certain figures (eg: N in Figure 19) in lines 391, 398-399, 403. But all others were homogenized with the word "Figure" followed by the corresponding number.

Comments 5: “the way figure 6 is presented is not related to the article (what significance do the notations from 4.1 to 8.9 have with the one presented by the article). It is just an image from the standard”.

Response 5: We changed the way Figure 6 is presented, placing special emphasis on how ISO/IEC 17025:2017 clauses incorporate the principles of the PDCA model. This highlights the importance that the PDCA has for all types of industries, including services. These changes appear in lines 172 to 175 and in the title of image 6.

Comments 6: “inconsistency of use and in writing the units of measure, the international system (IS) must be used (eg: table 3 - 6 Kgf, line 248 of 6 kgf, table 4, etc.)”.

Response 6: We are agreeing with this comment. This was one of the most significant changes made to the manuscript. Changed all kgf values ​​to Newtons (N). All the graphs that measured the process capacity were also modified because their calculations were based on kgf, and they were adapted to Newtons (figure 17 a and b, figure 20 a and b, figure 22 a and b, figure 25 a and b).

 

Comments 7: “Worm gear velocity" has no way of having "Seconds" as a unit of measure (by definition velocity is distance / time)”

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We change the unit of worm gear velocity to rpm.

 

Comments 8: “in IS: "Kilovolts, Kv" is kV, "Kpa" is kPa, unit for force N”

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We made the adjustments.

 

Comments 8: “Line 341-342 "This consistent performance lays the foundation for developing reliable improvement plans [29]." is not properly positioned, in the middle of the process of explaining Figures 12-17”

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We place this paragraph, locating it in a more appropriate position according to figures 12 to 15 (lines 306-309).

 

Comments 9: “starting from line 439 "Cpk" is used which is not defined in the previous text, I found "Ppk" the error must be corrected”

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. The error was solved by changing to Ppk where it applied.

Comments 10: “Figure 34 is not correctly numbered line 580 "Figure 4."

Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. The figure was correctly numbered

 

Comments 11: “The article should end with the authors' conclusions, not with discussions"

Response 11: We are agreeing with this comment. The section was renamed by placing only the name "conclusions" and this section was reinforced by including the practical implications and scalability of the changes made in the organization where the study was carried out (line 621 - 632)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Overview and general recommendation:

The authors made many positive changes to the manuscript in response to the review. There are still a few changes that should be considered before publication.

1)     Figures 1-3: Adding the labels to these figures is very helpful to understanding the underlying manufacturing process. However some of these labels use different terminology that is not mentioned in the text. For example, the “commutator bar” is only mentioned one other time in the manuscript. If it is an important part, it should be discussed around these figures as well. Also, what is a “stack thoot?” Is this a typo?

 

2)     Figures 5,6: Have the authors received copyright permissions to reuse these figures?

3)     Table 3: The average value listed for pressures is less than the minimum value listed for pressures in this table. That should not be possible.

4)     Rotating the laminations: The description of rotating the laminations (lines 500-501) is clearer than the previous description, but it could still be improved. Specifically, were all the laminations rotated, or just the one on the end of the stack? If all of the laminations were rotated, wouldn’t they end up with the same problem on the other side of the stack?

5)     Figures 28-29: Figure captions are typically written in the other order of y-axis vs. x-axis (i.e., “Epoxy curing percentage as a function of voltage”).

 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review the corrections
made to this manuscript. Please find detailed responses below
and corresponding corrections to your new observations highlighted
in the forwarded file.

Comments 1: “Figures 1-3: Adding the labels to these figures is very helpful to understanding the underlying manufacturing process. However some of these labels use different terminology that is not mentioned in the text. For example, the “commutator bar” is only mentioned one other time in the manuscript. If it is an important part, it should be discussed around these figures as well. Also, what is a “stack thoot?” Is this a typo?” .

Answer 1: Thanks for pointing this out. A paragraph was added on lines 94-97 referring to the labels "commutator", "stack teeth" and "stack slots". The additional paragraphs on lines 589-591 and 596-601 also refer to the labels slots and commutator. The label "tooth" had a typo and was corrected.

Comments 2: “Figures 5,6: Have the authors received copyright permissions to reuse these figures?”.

Answer 2: Thanks for pointing this out. Figures 5 and 6 were changed by others of our own authorship, since we did not have the copyright permissions of the previous ones.

 Comments 3: “Table 3: The average value listed for pressures is less than the minimum value listed for pressures in this table. That should not be possible".

Answer 3: Thanks for pointing this out. We apologize .The average value was corrected 

 Comments 4: “Rotating the laminations: The description of rotating the laminations (lines 500-501) is clearer than the previous description, but it could still be improved. Specifically, were all the laminations rotated, or just the one on the end of the stack? If all of the laminations were rotated, wouldn’t they end up with the same problem on the other side of the stack?".

Answer 4: Thanks for pointing this out. Added 3 paragraphs on lines 589-591, 592-594 and 596-601 to clarify the improvement resulting from rotating the laminations. Image 24 was also added to complement the content of those added paragraphs.

Comments 5: “Figures 28-29: Figure captions are typically written in the other order of y-axis vs. x-axis (i.e., “Epoxy curing percentage as a function of voltage”)".

Answer 5: Thanks for pointing this out. Figure captions were corrected

     

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your response to my comments and for incorporating my comments, which are only partial.

Some of the comments and criticisms still remain. The authors claim that this is a new application of the PDCA approach. But how does this manuscript extend the current state of knowledge at the theoretical level?

The authors claim that this approach has not been found in the literature. Has a truly systematic literature search been conducted? Are there no other more appropriate methods to address this problem?

A critical approach to current studies is not sufficient.

The literature search that has been done is not sufficient.

Discussion of results with other studies is not sufficient.

The limits of the manuscript are still missing!

There are still many problems that prevent the acceptance of the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review the corrections
made to this manuscript. Please find detailed responses below
and corresponding corrections to your new observations highlighted
in the forwarded file.

Comments 1: “The authors claim that this is a new application of the PDCA approach. But how does this manuscript extend the current state of knowledge at the theoretical level?” .

Answer 1: Thanks for pointing this out. A paragraph was added on lines 752-763 referring to Implications to theory. 

Comments 2: “The authors claim that this approach has not been found in the literature. Has a truly systematic literature search been conducted? Are there no other more appropriate methods to address this problem?”.

Answer 2: Thanks for pointing this out. A systematic search of the literature related to the approach used in the case study was carried out. No more appropriate methods were found to solve the problem addressed in the research. The most outstanding results of this search were reflected throughout subchapter 3.5 (lines 229-269)

 Comments 3: “A critical approach to current studies is not sufficient.".

Answer 3: We appreciate your valuable observation about the need for a more critical approach in reviewing current studies. We carefully reviewed the manuscript and incorporated new references (from 33 to 48) to strengthen this aspect. These references provide a more critical perspective by exploring:

• The history and evolution of the PDCA cycle, highlighting potential limitations in its traditional application.
• Analyses of published articles that explore the effectiveness of PDCA in various organizational contexts.
• Adjustments made to the PDCA cycle to address specific conditions, emphasizing its adaptability and potential shortcomings.
• The relationship between the PDCA cycle, the IATF 1694 standard, and the 8D problem-solving method, fostering a more comprehensive understanding of quality management frameworks and potential areas for integration.
• Research on Hi-pot failures in electrical armatures, providing a specific industry context for the challenges addressed by the PDCA cycle and its limitations in addressing them.

We believe that this critical analysis enriches the discussion and provides a more complete and nuanced understanding of the role of the PDCA cycle in reducing scrap in electric motors due to hypot defects.

  Comments 4: “The literature search that has been done is not sufficient".

Answer 4: Thanks for pointing this out. We added some paragraphs on lines 120-128, 163-168, 174-187 and 220-269 to to strengthen the literature supporting the manuscript.

Comments 5: “Discussion of results with other studies is not sufficient".

Answer 5: Thanks for pointing this out. We added paragraph in lines 734-741 to address this observation

Comments 6: “The limits of the manuscript are still missing!".

Answer 6: Thanks for pointing this out. We added paragraph in lines 772-777 to address this observation

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Remarks

1. Unfortunately, the explanation of abbreviations is insufficient. To make this very clear, when such an abbreviation is used for the first time it must be explained regardless of where it is used. The reader does not have to look in the text of the article for what you wanted to say or find it later. The paper should be written as clearly as possible to be understood by the readers.

2. The paper's abstract is very ambiguous, it is not clear what the paper aims at and what the results are. It needs to be rephrased in a much clearer way.

3. The use and abbreviation of units of measure is still not properly corrected. e.g. table 3 "Kilovolts" instead of kV according to the International System of Measurement (IS).

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review the corrections
made to this manuscript. Please find detailed responses below
and corresponding corrections to your new observations highlighted
in the forwarded file.

Comments 1: “Unfortunately, the explanation of abbreviations is
insufficient. To make this very clear, when such an abbreviation is
used for the first time it must be explained regardless of where it
is used. The reader does not have to look in the text of the article
for what you wanted to say or find it later. The paper should be written
as clearly as possible to be understood by the readers” .

Answer 1: Thanks for pointing this out. We apologize. We believed that
abbreviations should not be explained in the abstract. So, the following
changes were made

PDCA.- Line 3-4 (before it was on line 49)
5W + 2H.- Line 20-21 (before this explanation was on lines 191-192)
MSW.- Row 3 of the introduction
Hi-pot.- Line 70 (before it was on line 68)

PFMEA.-  Line 168-169

ISO.- Line 193
DSC.- Line 338 (All other references were removed. It just stayed where it first appears).
VSM.- Line 161 (It had not been explained before).

IATF.- Line 220

IEC.- Line 210

PD.- Line 235

SiC.- Line 243

NDT.- Line 257

Comments 2. "The paper's abstract is very ambiguous, it is not clear what the paper aims at and what the results are. It needs to be rephrased in a much clearer way".

Answer 2: Thanks for pointing this out. The abstract was rewritten 

Comments 3: “The use and abbreviation of units of measure is still not properly
corrected. e.g. table 3 "Kilovolts" instead of kV according to the International
System of Measurement (IS)” .
Answer 3: Thanks for pointing this out. We apologize again.The indicated units
of measurement were corrected.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for incorporating my comments and observations. There are still many things in the manuscript that could be improved, but from my perspective the manuscript is in an acceptable form at this point.

Author Response

Thank you for your continued review of the manuscript. We appreciate
your valuable comments and observations. While we acknowledge there
may be room for further improvement, we are grateful you consider
the manuscript acceptable at this stage.