Constructing a Real-Time Value-Chain Integration Architecture for Mass Individualized Juice Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I am glad the authors made this valuable study. Some suggestions are listed as follows.

Keywords: Asset and Asset Administration System looks redundant. So you may remove Asset. Also, it is recommended not to duplicate words such as “Value Chain Integration” in the title and keyword.

Abstract: The authors may remove PEC, OMIS, ABM, AAdSys or provide full names for these acronyms.

Introduction: Line 47: The authors may realise that customization, personalization, and individualization terms are often used interchangeably while they are not precisely the same. Therefore, “mass customization or individualized” can be revised. The authors may wish to consider recent studies dedicated to mass production of individualized products, including “Mass Personalisation as a Service in Industry 4.0: A Resilient Response Case Study” and “The degree of mass personalisation under Industry 4.0.”

Line 164, 165, 173: Please use an acronym after defined. Therefore avoid repeating asset administration shell (AAS). It is worth checking the entire manuscript concerning other acronyms.

Paragraphs: It is strongly advised to break down long sections—for example, the Introduction and subsections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6. You may need to apply the same approach across the manuscript.  In general, the manuscript is quite lengthy, which require careful attention to brief the content.

Line 365: I wonder why physical assets in Retailer (PEC) is repeated. Also, “ Manufacturer (OMIS)” does not make sense.

Figure 6: Please provide a more specific caption that “ use Case Overview”

Formation: Please increase the resolution of figures as almost all figures, including 1, 3, 5, 8, 13, 16, 17, 23, 24, and 29, are not clear enough.

Line 355: The title “3. Project Development and Methods” can be changed and improved.

Results: This section’s content is more suitable under Section 4 Experiment Setup.

I hope you found the feedback helpful.

Stay safe!

Author Response

Dear reviewer, here is our response to your review. I've also attached a file detailing the changes.

Comments	Action
Keywords: Asset and Asset Administration System looks redundant. So you may remove Asset. Also, it is recommended not to duplicate words such as “Value Chain Integration” in the title and keyword.	removed asset. Changed title based on the 2nd reviewer’s comment.
Abstract: The authors may remove PEC, OMIS, ABM, AAdSys or provide full names for these acronyms.	Changed accordingly
Introduction: Line 47: The authors may realise that customization, personalization, and individualization terms are often used interchangeably while they are not precisely the same. Therefore, “mass customization or individualized” can be revised. The authors may wish to consider recent studies dedicated to mass production of individualized products, including “Mass Personalisation as a Service in Industry 4.0: A Resilient Response Case Study” and “The degree of mass personalisation under Industry 4.0.”	We have edited the manuscript by focusing more on the individualized production, which is related to mass personalization. Also included the 2 recommended papers.
Line 164, 165, 173: Please use an acronym after defined. Therefore avoid repeating asset administration shell (AAS). It is worth checking the entire manuscript concerning other acronyms.	Amended accordingly. Checked through the entire manuscript.
Paragraphs: It is strongly advised to break down long sections—for example, the Introduction and subsections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6. You may need to apply the same approach across the manuscript.  In general, the manuscript is quite lengthy, which require careful attention to brief the content.	Broke down the long paragraphs into shorter paragraphs. Reduced the length of Subsections and Conclusion
Line 365: I wonder why physical assets in Retailer (PEC) is repeated. Also, “ Manufacturer (OMIS)” does not make sense.	The sentence is removed.
Figure 6: Please provide a more specific caption that “ use Case Overview”	Changed to “The Architecture Diagram of the Proof of Concept Development”
Formation: Please increase the resolution of figures as almost all figures, including 1, 3, 5, 8, 13, 16, 17, 23, 24, and 29, are not clear enough.	Pictures with higher resolution are updated, and enlarged to ease reading.
Line 355: The title “3. Project Development and Methods” can be changed and improved.	Changed to Project Background
Results: This section’s content is more suitable under Section 4 Experiment Setup.	This section content shows the results of the experimental setup. Some sentences are rephrased to ease understanding that they are concerning the results derived from the experiments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents a proof of concept (POC) system that may be used as a model in a personalized mass production scenario, in which multiple parties are involved in the manufacturing and delivery process. The authors use the RAMI 4.0 specifications as the reference for their approach. The authors give an extended description of the RAMI 4.0 and the way in which this standard may be used for real applications.

Strengths: a detailed presentation of all the components needed in a multi-layer, real-time asset management system, that involve multiple autonomous parties, involved in a manufacturing and delivery process; the POC may be used as a reference model for real applications.

weaknesses: the authors don't bring innovative elements, except maybe the fact that they demonstrate that what is specified in the RAMI 4.0 can be implemented on a value management chain.

• the images in some of the figures  are not enough clear (some text is hard to read)
• the authors don't offer result of tests that asses the efficiency of the system from the end-user's perspective
• the POC does not cover the physical manufacturing and delivery part of the process (e.g. acknowledgement from the end-user when the product arrived at its destination)

Author Response

The paper presents a proof of concept (POC) system that may be used as a model in a personalized mass production scenario, in which multiple parties are involved in the manufacturing and delivery process. The authors use the RAMI 4.0 specifications as the reference for their approach. The authors give an extended description of the RAMI 4.0 and the way in which this standard may be used for real applications.

Strengths: a detailed presentation of all the components needed in a multi-layer, real-time asset management system, that involve multiple autonomous parties, involved in a manufacturing and delivery process; the POC may be used as a reference model for real applications.

weaknesses: the authors don't bring innovative elements, except maybe the fact that they demonstrate that what is specified in the RAMI 4.0 can be implemented on a value management chain.

the images in some of the figures are not enough clear (some text is hard to read)	Pictures with higher resolution are updated, and enlarged to ease reading.
the authors don't offer result of tests that asses the efficiency of the system from the end-user's perspective	The conclusion section is updated based on these comments. This paper only focuses on the implementation of integration, communication and information layers of RAMI 4.0. An architecture is designed to address two major problems, which are i) asset modelling and integration, ii) data communication and brokering.  The experiments test the connectivity performance between two servers belong to PEC and OMIS. However, this paper does not assess the efficiency of the system from the end-user's perspective. It also does not test the performance of the physical manufacturing and delivery processes. More holistic research shall be developed in the future to assess the outcome of Industry 4.0 implementation based on RAMI 4.0. These limitations raised by the reviewers are now addressed in the last paragraph of the Conclusion section.
the POC does not cover the physical manufacturing and delivery part of the process (e.g. acknowledgement from the end-user when the product arrived at its destination)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for submitting your revised version. Appreciate for addressing my comments and concerns raised earlier.

I wish you the best in 2022, and stay safe!