Review of Integrated Management Systems to Re-Engineer Existing Nonconformances Troubleshooting System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title

 

Review of Integrated Management systems to Re-Engineer existing nonconformances troubleshooting system.

 

Overall comments

 

This work intends to  perform a deep study of problem-solving models related to the Integrated Management Systems (IMS), by examining various troubleshooting models for problem solving and preventive action, related to quality nonconformance’s, safety incidents and engineering breakdowns.

This study is intended to develop additional knowledge to bring more accuracy through future models, regarding problem solving, in order to raise the quality of preventive action.

They have also developed and applied a troubleshooting model to the case study company for simulation. The authors claims that the model’s outcomes have resulted in the closure of nonconformances and continual improvement of future projects.

 

A literature review section, together with a more updated literature review, is desired to better justify the paper’s main contribution.

 

Nevertheless, and with regards to the paper’s structure, it seems “somehow” well-organized, containing all the expected components, (e.g. Introduction, Research Methods, ...), although the Section 4 (results), should include the Discussion of the results, and then the Conclusions of study, presented on Section 5.

Although the work’s outcomes stated on the conclusions, are not entirely covered by the achieved results, some of the findings stated here  seems to be convinced to me, given the purpose of the work. However, the paper’s main contribution are not sufficiently supported, whether by the literature review, whether by the results. This would help to better support the paper’s novelty and the importance of the results achieved here.

The main contribution of this work should be better explained in the introduction section. There is some incoherencies between what is stated on the introduction and what is claimed in the conclusions section.

Despite this, and in general, the authors have answered (in part) to the research question stated here.

Furthermore, the relevance of the subject is also high on the “present day”.

Some recommendations regarding this issue, can be found it below.

 

Some recommendations of improvement:

  Strong points:

·         Case studies and data used

 

·         The relevance of the subject

 

·         Research methods used – although it could be more detailed, given the general comments stated above.     

 

Weak points:

·       Literature review: most of the literature used here are insufficient, in order to better support the gaps found here, also the importance of this study. The authors should provide a better developed section concerning this issue.

 

 

·       Discussion of results:  Should be also improved and if it is possible, discussing the results based on other works regarding the methods which are being compared with the proposed one. The authors should add more studies to compare the obtained results.

·       Future works: Should be included here in order to provide some future lines of research, for instance, to improve the model developed here.

Other comments:

 

 

·       Reference style are not coherent – Please revise this issue

·       It was detected some typos in the text. Some examples: (ex. Line: 35 (..)” Mukungu et al.[4] evaluated that the minor nonconformance it the type of nonconformance that has less negative impact” (,,)Line 121: (..)” The quality data base also” (..), line 126: (..)” The review of the solution provided is also discuss within the meeting”(..)   Please revise the text.

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are too many typos found here (see the comments for the authors).

The quality of the text must be improved.

Author Response

SN.	Comments	Corrective action	Line number
Comment 1	This work intends to perform a deep study of problem-solving models related to the Integrated Management Systems (IMS), by examining various troubleshooting models for problem solving and preventive action, related to quality nonconformance’s, safety incidents and engineering breakdowns.	Thank you for the comments	N/A
Comment 2	This study is intended to develop additional knowledge to bring more accuracy through future models, regarding problem solving, to raise the quality of preventive action.	Thank you for the comments	N/A
Comment 3	They have also developed and applied a troubleshooting model to the case study company for simulation. The authors claims that the model’s outcomes have resulted in the closure of nonconformances and continual improvement of future projects.	Thank you for the comments	N/A
Comment 4	A literature review section, together with a more updated literature review, is desired to better justify the paper’s main contribution.	Update literature review	Line 34-42 Line 50-53 Line 66-70 Line 80-84 Line 86-90 Line96-104 Line 105-111 Line 121-124 Line 134-137 Line 137-145 Line 145-151 Line 156-161
Comment 5	Nevertheless, and with regards to the paper’s structure, it seems “somehow” well-organized, containing all the expected components, (e.g. Introduction, Research Methods, ...), although the Section 4 (results), should include the Discussion of the results, and then the Conclusions of study, presented on Section 5.	Added Results discussion and Conclusion	Line 355-368
Comment 6	Although the work’s outcomes stated on the conclusions, are not entirely covered by the achieved results, some of the findings stated here seems to be convinced to me, given the purpose of the work. However, the paper’s main contribution is not sufficiently supported, whether by the literature review, whether by the results. This would help to better support the paper’s novelty and the importance of the results achieved here.	Literature gap added	Literature gap Line 94-205
Comment 7	The main contribution of this work should be better explained in the introduction section. There is some incoherencies between what is stated on the introduction and what is claimed in the conclusions section.	Main contribution section on introduction	Line 162-193
Comment 8	Despite this, and in general, the authors have answered (in part) to the research question stated here. Furthermore, the relevance of the subject is also high on the “present day”.	Thank you for the comments	N/A
Comment 9	Strong points:· Case studies and data used · The relevance of the subject · Research methods used – although it could be more detailed, given the general comments stated above.	Thank you for the comments	N/A
Comment 10	Weak points:· Literature review: most of the literature used here are insufficient, in order to better support the gaps found here, also the importance of this study. The authors should provide a better developed section concerning this issue.	Added more information on the introduction	Updated
Comment 11	Weak points:·· Discussion of results:  Should be also improved and if it is possible, discussing the results based on other works regarding the methods which are being compared with the proposed one. The authors should add more studies to compare the obtained results.	Discussion of the results for the proposed model compared with existing methods	Line 300-320
Comment 12	Weak points:Future works: Should be included here in order to provide some future lines of research, for instance, to improve the model developed here.	Future works included	Line 439-461
Comment 13	· Reference style are not coherent – Please revise this issue · It was detected some typos in the text. Some examples:(ex. Line: 35 (..)” Mukungu et al.[4] evaluated that the minor nonconformance it the type of nonconformance that has less negative impact” (,,)Line 121: (..)” The quality data base also” (..), line 126: (..)” The review of the solution provided is also discuss within the meeting”(..)   Please revise the text.	Lines revised accordingly	Lines revised.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is factually correct. This study is current from a scientific and utilitarian point of view. The article proposes the improvement of the technology of models for solving problems related to Integrated Management Systems (IMS). The added value is the use of knowledge and experience by former employees dealing with various methods of solving quality and health and safety problems. The problem-solving model is in some ways innovative. The conclusions are correct. The literature is well selected. These are the positive aspects of the study. Potential for improvement:

-) Please clearly state the purpose of the study in the abstract.

-) Please write in the abstract: what methods were used in the model and to whom (or in every company) it will be used.

-) In Chapter 1, I would suggest referring not only to preventive actions, but more broadly to risk management. I suggest considering the possibility of using, for example, the ISO 31000 methodology to manage opportunities and threats. It's just a suggestion, but it seems appropriate here.

-) Fig5. It is an algorithm. Therefore, it should have the following fields: START, END.

-) Fig.7. Is it possible to enlarge the font? Now the text is almost unreadable.

-) I suggest not finishing the subsection (2.1, 2.2, 4.1 etc.) Fig. I propose to end it with a summary text.

-) Chapter 4.1. On what basis were accepted or unacceptable risk levels adopted: 20%, 48%? This is crucial information and in my opinion it needs to be clarified.

I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style.

In my opinion, the article can be published after making the proposed improvements.

Author Response

SN.	Comments	Corrective action	Line number
Comment 1	Please clearly state the purpose of the study in the abstract.	Purpose revised	Line 14-20
Comment 2	Please write in the abstract: what methods were used in the model and to whom (or in every company) it will be used.	Abstract revised	Line 20-21 and line 23-25
Comment 3	In Chapter 1, I would suggest referring not only to preventive actions, but more broadly to risk management. I suggest considering the possibility of using, for example, the ISO 31000 methodology to manage opportunities and threats. It's just a suggestion, but it seems appropriate here.	Information about ISO 31000 added	Line 201-212
Comment 4	Fig5. It is an algorithm. Therefore, it should have the following fields: START, END.	Thank you for the comments	N/A
Comment 5	Fig.7. Is it possible to enlarge the font? Now the text is almost unreadable.	Text Increased on Fg7	Fg.7
Comment 6	I suggest not finishing the subsection (2.1, 2.2, 4.1 etc.) Fig. I propose to end it with a summary text.	Thank you for the comments	Changes considered
Comment 7	Chapter 4.1. On what basis were accepted or unacceptable risk levels adopted: 20%, 48%? This is crucial information and in my opinion it needs to be clarified.	Addressed	Line 340-342

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- The English needs improvement. For instance, the phrase "Total Quality Management (TQM) is a strategic philosophy that has adopted kaizen activities which drives the business to carry out activities effectively to yield the best desired output, hence a profitable organization." is too long and convoluted. Let's revise and improve the English.

- Please check spaces and punctuation, for example "(IMS)by" in line 15.

- I suggest a significant overhaul of the introduction. You should focus the first part of the introduction on background, then state-of-the-art, followed by the gap highlighted in the literature, and subsequently, the aim of your study.

- Avoid figures in the introduction and possibly place them in a new paragraph (following the introduction) where you present the literature background.

- Finally, add the limitations of your work in the discussion section.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English needs improvement. 

Author Response

SN.	Comments	Corrective action	Line number
Comment 1	Total Quality Management (TQM) is a strategic philosophy that has adopted kaizen activities which drives the business to carry out activities effectively to yield the best desired output, hence a profitable organization." is too long and convoluted. Let's revise and improve the English.	Prof to assist
Comment 2	Please check spaces and punctuation line 15	Checked	Line 15
Comment 3	suggest a significant overhaul of the introduction. You should focus the first part of the introduction on background, then state-of-the-art, followed by the gap highlighted in the literature, and subsequently, the aim of your study.	revised	Line 214-227
Comment 4	Avoid figures in the introduction and possibly place them in a new paragraph (following the introduction) where you present the literature background.	revised	Kindly refer to the introduction
Comment 5	Finally, add the limitations of your work in the discussion section	added	Line 227-230

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article discsussed the Review of Integrated Management systems to Re-Engineer existing nonconformances troubleshooting system. Following are the comments, which should be incorporated in revised draft:

1. It is important to include the key contribution, research objective and scope in introduction section, which will help authors to understand the innovation of this research work.

2. Authors needs to discussed some cases of companies, which implemented and integrated management systems in their operations.

3. Lack of newly scientific literature review. Authors have done a great job but did not provide up-to-date literature from 2024 year in this article. Therefore, I recommend author to include recently published articles in relevant journals.

4. Invisible figures 6 - 10. Low and poor quality of figures 1, 3 and 4. Please work on this and enhanced the quality.

5. Lack of discussion on the key findings.

6. Theoretical contribution and practical implications should be included in detailed as a subsection of conclusion part.

 

Author Response

SN.	Comments	Corrective action	Line number
Comment 1	1. It is important to include the key contribution, research objective and scope in introduction section, which will help authors to understand the innovation of this research work.	Edited	Line 225-235
Comment 2	2. Authors needs to discussed some cases of companies, which implemented and integrated management systems in their operations.	Added information	Line 31-167
Comment 3	Lack of newly scientific literature review. Authors have done a great job but did not provide up-to-date literature from 2024 year in this article. Therefore, I recommend author to include recently published articles in relevant journals.	Updated	Line 34-42 Line 50-53 Line 66-70 Line 80-84 Line 86-90 Line96-104 Line 105-111 Line 121-124 Line 134-137 Line 137-145 Line 145-151 Line 156-161
Comment 4	Invisible figures 6 - 10. Low and poor quality of figures 1, 3 Please work on this and enhanced the quality
Comment 5	5. Lack of discussion on the key findings.	Added information	Kindly refer to the Introduction
Comment 6	Theoretical contribution and practical implications should be included in detailed as a subsection of conclusion part.	Added information	Kindly refer to the Introduction and conclusion

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Generally speaking, the authors have considered my comments.

Nevertheless the paper's contribution should be  more clear, regarding its presentation.

The authors should take in consideration the journal's guidelines (specially) when it takes to the paper's references

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text should be proofread in order to improve its writing.

Author Response

Attached response to the  reviewer

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been improved and in my opinion it can be published in its current form.

Author Response

Attached response to reviewer

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have significantly improved the paper in accordance with my suggestions, and in my opinion, it can be published in its current form.

Author Response

Attached response to reviewer 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors almost have incorporated the raised concerns.

Author Response

Attached response to reviewers

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Generally speaking, the authors have addressed my concerns.

Therefore, i can only recommend to proofread the paper in order to improve the overall quality of the text.

The authors should address the paper's guidelines, including the reference style used.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Generally speaking, the authors have addressed my concerns.

Therefore, i can only recommend to proofread the paper in order to improve the overall quality of the text.

Author Response

Response to reviewers attached as a word document

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 4

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

      

Comments on the Quality of English Language The manuscript can be accepted in current form.