Mathematical Modeling of the Global Engineering Process for Optimizing Product Quality in the Aerospace Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract (line 13-30) is poorly specified. It does not provide a brief overview of the work as well as the result that the authors of the article worked on. The abstract should reveal a little more about what the work was about and what results were achieved so that the reader is excited about the abstract.

In line 98-99, the authors state that there are many studies of the application of mathematical modeling. This modeling that the authors want to publish has not been used by anyone before? Or did they arrive at completely different results?

Table 1 lists the abbreviations "Res." (1 to 8). What does that mean? Are they Res as Respondent? I didn't find an explanation.

What does "Weighted average" in Table 1 refer to? Is it the average of the values ​​assigned for individual Res.1 to Res.8? Because if so, the "Weighted average" value in the first line does not correspond to the average of the individual values ​​in the first line, placed under individual Res.1 to Res.8. I got a value of 99.33.

The claim in line 329-334 that technical knowledge has the greatest weight in all activities is debatable. Looking at these numbers (bar graph - Figure 3), the numbers are really almost the same. I would state that all knowledge has the same weight. I would not see this as a difference pointing to an important aspect (my personal opinion, I leave it to the authors to consider). This also applies to Figures 4, 5 and 6.

Line 371-376 states: "this research demonstrates the importance of technical knowledge in product quality assurance in the aerospace industry". I do not share this opinion with the authors in the context of the above comments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is correct in terms of content. It is up-to-date in terms of science and utility. The article contributes to the improvement of the engineering process and quality improvement in the aerospace sector. The authors created and justified a mathematical model (IDEF0) adapted to the processes in the sector and aimed at assessing the impact of human resources on product quality. The simulation results showed a direct correlation between the level of technical knowledge and the quality delivered, which consequently affects the quality of the final product. In general, the authors came to the right conclusions that knowledge management is key to maintaining quality and competitiveness. The literature review is critical but at the same time competent. Both the analysis and the conclusions are correct. These are positive aspects of the study. Suggestions for improvement:

-) Please add information in the abstract to whom and for what this study may be useful. It should be assumed that it is not only in the aerospace industry.

-) Chapter 2. Literature review. Please conclude with a justification of the need to take up such a topic and achieve such a goal.

-) Chapter 2. Why do the authors write about Industry 4.0 at the beginning of Chapter 1 and refer to Industry 4.0 at the end of Chapter 2? Isn't it better to write about Industry 5.0 from the beginning as an extension of Industry 4.0, emphasizing the cooperation of man with the machine.

-) Table 1. I suggest placing the "%" sign in the table header. Then the table will be more legible. The same solution can be used in other tables.

-) Fig. 3-6. Please describe the axes on the graph.

I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper.

In general, the article is interesting and organizes the analyzed scope of knowledge. In my opinion, this article can be published after introducing the proposed, minor improvements.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is focused on the quality of judgment in the conditions of the aerospace industry. Following on from this fact, I am missing one thing. The article mentions the quality management system several times. However, the international standard for this area ISO 9100 is not mentioned once. The authors could mention it in the article. Readers will thus receive complete information that there is a standard that defines the requirements for such a quality management system in the conditions of the aerospace industry. That standard would deserve promotion in this article.

I wish the authors a lot of strength in their further research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx