Algorithm to Use Some Specific Lean Manufacturing Methods: Application in an Industrial Production Process
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
I read with interest the article proposed by you.
I have certain proposals that I will present in the order of appearance in the article
In line 6 please use an institutional address for the author; [email protected]
In the introduction, the authors present the state of art in the literature through general theoretical aspects that are welcome and case studies, but I consider that certain elements specific to the type of industrial process described here by bibliographical references.
I do not want to impose certain bibliographic resources, but this specific industry has a multitude of bibliographic sources, both scientific and technical.
I propose the extension of bibliographic references.
An important aspect of this article proposal is from my point of view the identification of the boundary between scientific concepts and their application through techniques in industrial processes.
In the Materials and Methods section, the authors propose an algorithm for project implementation in the case study within the "plastic injection" production system.
We do not identify any new contribution because the classic methods are already known are applied, practically well-known methods are used in the case of a production process.
In the section Application in an Industrial Process: Case Study we have the presentation of a classic production process. The contribution of the authors is well highlighted, but where is the scientific contribution to the implementation of the techniques from the classical methods.
There are enough materials to emphasize this aspect, but the form of the presentation leaves much to be desired.
From lines 511 to 537 it does not seem to me to connect the form of presentation on subsections with a phrase or with enumerations.
A narrative analytical description would be more useful, possibly presented in the form of a table.
In the Discussion section the same methodology for expressing the results.
The results are eloquent in the application of methodologies, but the form of presentation is not appropriate for a scientific article.
In the Conclusions section the same form of exposition.
Respectfully,
Calin-Adrian COMES
Author Response
Dear Professor Calin-Adrian COMES,
Thank you for analyzing our manuscript, entitled "Algorithm to use some specific Lean Manufacturing methods: application in an industrial production process". We also thank you for the observations and recommendations made in order to increase the quality of our work.
We hope that we took all this into account when we revised the paper and, consequently, we send the paper to you in revised form.
We modified some parts of the paper in accordance with the observations and recommendations of the two reviewers, and we highlighted this on a yellow background. Also, we used the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word, so that changes are easily visible to everyone.
In the following, we present our responses to your comments.
Responses to the Reviewer #1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear authors,
I read with interest the article proposed by you.
I have certain proposals that I will present in the order of appearance in the article
In line 6 please use an institutional address for the author; [email protected]
R: This address was replaced with the address from the institution. Mr. Gavriluţă is also, a PhD to the University of Pitesti.
In the introduction, the authors present the state of art in the literature through general theoretical aspects that are welcome and case studies, but I consider that certain elements specific to the type of industrial process described here by bibliographical references.
I do not want to impose certain bibliographic resources, but this specific industry has a multitude of bibliographic sources, both scientific and technical.
I propose the extension of bibliographic references.
R: The bibliography was extended, and the section „introduction” was adjusted accordingly.
An important aspect of this article proposal is from my point of view the identification of the boundary between scientific concepts and their application through techniques in industrial processes.
R: We tried to highlight better the suggested boundaries. Thus, in section 2.1 we explicitly mentioned what is the scientific novelty, and in section 4 we detailed the way to determine the KPIs.
In the Materials and Methods section, the authors propose an algorithm for project implementation in the case study within the "plastic injection" production system.
We do not identify any new contribution because the classic methods are already known are applied, practically well-known methods are used in the case of a production process.
R: Although the methods are known, the algorithm suggests a logical succession of their use, in a pragmatical manner, making the choice of the user simpler. A first novelty element in this algorithm is the use of JobObservation method (usually used in the study of work or to compare the condition of an SP with a standard) as an alternative for the VSM method (which is focused on the analysis of material and informational flow). This is highlighted in the paper in the stage „Choosing the method of evaluating the production system” – line 159.
Another element of novelty in this algorithm is the fact that, when evaluating the production system, specific Lean manufacturing methods are proposed for application according to the wastes identified for their elimination - the stage "Improvement methods application". In this context, the JobObservation method has been redesigned to evaluate system performance, offering advantages over VSM, in that it allows the identification of wastes caused by layout-design and NVA activities such as handling and movement. At the same time, forms were developed/readapted, allowing the pragmatic application of the method.
In the 5S method, the proposed algorithm has the advantage of making it easier to highlight the stages/ steps to follow.
These aspects are now mentioned in the paper (section 2.1), we have redone Fig. 1 for an easier understanding of this algorithm and we have simplified the way of presenting the recommendations regarding the Lean manufacturing methods to be applied - lines 195 - 211.
We also made some form changes and translation corrections to Figures 3 - 9.
In the section Application in an Industrial Process: Case Study we have the presentation of a classic production process. The contribution of the authors is well highlighted, but where is the scientific contribution to the implementation of the techniques from the classical methods. There are enough materials to emphasize this aspect, but the form of the presentation leaves much to be desired.
R: A large part of the figures were reconsidered, by completion or regrouping, and new ones were added, to better highlight the study performed. Also, the KPIs were defined on the basis of which the performances of the analyzed production system were evaluated.
From lines 511 to 537 it does not seem to me to connect the form of presentation on subsections with a phrase or with enumerations. A narrative analytical description would be more useful, possibly presented in the form of a table.
R: We redid, eliminating the subsections.
In the Discussion section the same methodology for expressing the results.
The results are eloquent in the application of methodologies, but the form of presentation is not appropriate for a scientific article.
R: The "Discussion" section has been extensively revised. We reconstructed the presentation and interpretation of the study results, emphasizing the KPIs considered, explaining the actions taken in the study, their effect, and influence on these indicators.
The graphical presentation of the results has been improved and tables have been added to better highlight the results of the study.
In the Conclusions section the same form of exposition.
R: The "Conclusions" section has been revised, highlighting the main improvements to the production system and the resulting gains.
Once again, thank you for analyzing our manuscript and for all your observations and recommendations. I look forward to receiving your reviews, with the hope that they will be favorable.
Sincerely,
Eduard Laurenţiu NIŢU
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper describes the case study of the utilization of Lean Manufacturing tools and methods. The authors propose the algorithm for selecting the tools and methods that should be applied to improve the production process based on the initial analysis of the production system. The proposed work is very interesting and the obtained results prove that the research was successful.
I want to mention that Figure 4 is not clear - please add the information about the axis. Also please verify if the data are presented correctly (currently the chart shows the increase of operator number and decrease of kits/shift after introducing the changes).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for analyzing our manuscript, entitled "Algorithm to use some specific Lean Manufacturing methods: application in an industrial production process". We also thank you for the observations and recommendations made in order to increase the quality of our work.
We hope that we took all this into account when we revised the paper and, consequently, we send the paper to you in revised form.
We modified some parts of the paper in accordance with the observations and recommendations of the two reviewers, and we highlighted this on a yellow background. Also, we used the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word, so that changes are easily visible to everyone.
In the following, we present our responses to your comments.
Responses to the Reviewer #2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper describes the case study of the utilization of Lean Manufacturing tools and methods. The authors propose the algorithm for selecting the tools and methods that should be applied to improve the production process based on the initial analysis of the production system.
The proposed work is very interesting and the obtained results prove that the research was successful.
I want to mention that Figure 40 is not clear - please add the information about the axis. Also please verify if the data are presented correctly (currently the chart shows the increase of operator number and decrease of kits/shift after introducing the changes).
R: We corrected and completed all figures, including mentioned Figures.
Once again, thank you for analyzing our manuscript and for all your observations and recommendations.
I look forward to receiving your reviews, with the hope that they will be favorable.
Sincerely,
Eduard Laurenţiu NIŢU
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear all,
Thank you for your answers.
I wish you success in your research.
Respectfully
