Make-or-Buy Policy Decision in Maintenance Planning for Mobility: A Multi-Criteria Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Methodology could be explained in detail. Current explanations are much about telling importance of selected KPIs and how much sensible the results found are. Even in results part, while explaining case, similar aproach is used. It is not understood how qualitative criteria are handled.

Originality is mostly on collecting information on the sector and being able to classify the maintenance problems. Specific gap in the field is that make-or-buy decision approach is not applied earlier to solve this problem.
Contribution of the study is not understood well as steps of the used technique are not explained in detail.
Improvements on giving a flow chart or a figure showing each steps will be beneficial. Also comparison with other techniques could add value to the study.
There is not any numerical value in conclusions to judge the efficiency of the proposed approach. Also, not enough comparison with other techniques are done.
This study seems as a summarized report of a company's work on the field. Much more explanation on used method is necessary.

 

Page 3 line 73-74, references are not given in order.

Methodology could be explained in detail. Current explanations are much about telling importance of selected KPIs and how much sensible the results found are. Even in results part, while explaining case, similar aproach is used. It is not understood how qualitative criteria are handled.

Page 3 line 73-74, references are not given in order.

Also, english of manuscript should be checked. Revise the following lines:

Page2 line 54

Page 5 line 132 (there are two "to")

Page 5 line  140 (no need "hereby")

Page 6 line 172,176: Beginning of paragraph should be checked

Page 11 line 386: Table number is not clear

Page 11 line 395

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English of manuscript should be checked. Revise the following lines:

Page2 line 54

Page 5 line 132 (there are two "to")

Page 5 line  140 (no need "hereby")

Page 6 line 172,176: Beginning of paragraph should be checked

Page 11 line 386: Table number is not clear

Page 11 line 395

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the submitted manuscript, the authors aimed to establish a decision-making framework to handle the make-or-buy choices. In this research, the authors took divergent KPIs into account to examine the maintenance approach. Despite the holistic scheme comprising global and national trends regarding the mobility solutions and findings valuable for the pertinent literature, this study still needs some improvements by addressing the concerns of the reviewer. Based on this, my comments are as follows:

 

 

·      In my opinion, the sector name should be included into the Title.

 

·      The Abstract should contain the methods employed to conduct multi-criteria decision-making analysis.

 

·      Please mention the major outcomes of this study in the Abstract.

 

·      Please include more keywords as they increase the visibility of your study.

 

·      The Introduction requires the presentation of past research, particularly related to the use of MCDM techniques for similar purposes.

 

·      The major contributions of this study and its novelty should further be highlighted.

 

·      In my opinion, the manuscript needs an additional section in order to summarize the research framework. This section can be placed just before the Materials and Methods. Also, please incorporate a flowchart into the newly inserted section to provide a better overview to the interested scholars.

 

·      It is not clear how the authors performed the MCDM analysis. Please clarify this issue as it is of significance in terms of the reproducibility of the proposed decision-making framework.

 

·      Please check all the equations and include the full forms of the symbols used in these equations where their first appeal in the manuscript.

 

·      The manuscript contains typos (e.g., Line 386 Table ???). Please go through the entire manuscript to eliminate such issues.

 

·      The findings of the study should be discussed with those obtained by the previous literature. In addition, the authors are strongly recommended to provide the practical implications of this study. Based on these two major comments, I believe that this manuscript needs an additional Discussion section.

 

·      The limitations of this study and how it guides follow-up attempts should also be provided in the Conclusion section.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper discusses the Make-or-Buy Decision Applied to Maintenance related to the transportation sector using a Multi-Criteria Approach. I have to say that the paper reads very well and is absolutely clear. Level of English language is also academically adequate. The paper is also very well structured and I believe it was successful in presenting and discussing the topic. I have a a few comments before I grant my full approval:

1. Please discuss in more detail how this and the result could affect end customers in more detail and from a more practical perspective. Kindly note that maintenance and maintenance types are very well discussed in the literature, so in order to strengthen the contribution of the paper, more focus on how end customers would benefit is needed. 

2. The KPIs seems to be arbitrarily selected. Do you think that the set of selected KPIs is exhaustive? Aren't there any others? Kindly note that I am not asking to add more for the sake of adding, rather to justify more explicitly why did you chose these KPIs in specific since the whole study revolves around them. You need to be clear about both; the quantitative and qualitative KPIs.

3. What operational changes are associated with these make-or-buy decisions. How can Change Management be incorporated? Differently stated, what Change Management Practices are needed in line with these potential changes. These can act as hindrances to implementation.

4. In general, the scope of the paper is limited. I propose adding a conceptual model that serves both; extending the scope of the paper, and second clarifies the advantages of the final outcomes to end customers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is interesting and well-written. It contributes to a multi-criteria decision-making model for maintenance planning based on make-or-buy policy. However, this paper needs a major revision. I have the following comments: 

-I think the authors need to revise the title. The current title is a bit vague. I suggest revising the title to "A multi-criteria decision-making model for maintenance planning based on make-or-buy policy". 

-In the abstract, there are no specifics for the names of the applied multi-criteria decision-making model. Is it a novel model? Is it a hybrid model? 

-The introduction is only about the motivation. There is no discussion about the contributions. What is the contribution to the maintenance planning? 

-The last paragraph about the structure of the paper must be separated from other paragraphs. 

-The authors ignored the literature review about maintenance planning. For example, see this relevant paper about the maintenance planning: 

"Addressing a collaborative maintenance planning using multiple operators by a multi-objective Metaheuristic algorithm." published in IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering.

-There are two Sections with number 4. Revise the structure and order of sections. 

-Again, it is unclear the contributions of this paper in terms of the proposed multi-criteria decision-making model. There is no validation and comparison. 

-The conclusion must be written in different paragraphs explaining the contributions, results, findings, limitations, recommendations, and future works. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for your effort. Eventhough I believe much more explanation on used method could be added, your manuscript could be published in this form.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for addressing my comments. The manuscript needs the inclusion of a flowchart in order to clarify the implementation steps and to provide a better overview to interested scholars.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised draft can be accepted. 

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewer.