Framework on Performance Management in Automotive Industry: A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I congratulate the authors for their research and a good structuring of an interesting article, which provides a lot of information on specific elements of quality management and total quality management. However, there are some elements that need to be highlighted for a detailed review and improvement of the current article.

Thus, in the title is introduced the term (concept) benchmarking.

The first step in improving the article is to structure it based on the definition of benchmarking, paraphrasing "process of measuring key business metrics and practices and comparing them, within business areas or against a competitor or an industry peer as to understand how and where the organization (own or researched) needs to change in order to improve performance." The second step is identifying the core literature dedicated to benchmarking (seen as a tool or as a strategy of Total Quality Management and Quality Management) and present it as a foundation for research. The third step is identifying the ”best” in the industry, conduct research on its strengths and afterwards, based on quantitative research, build a model which can improve the activities and processes of other competitors in the industry.

Certainly,  the flow of steps is only a suggestion, which can be developed accordingly, but the authors must grind their research on the definition of benchmarking. Otherwise, there will be a random image and inconsistent one, between the topic (title) and content of the paper.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Coauthors and I very much appreciated the encouraging, critical and constructive comments on this manuscript by the reviewer. The comments have been very thorough and useful in improving the manuscript. We strongly believe that the comments and suggestions have increased the scientific value of revised manuscript by many folds. We have taken them fully into account in revision. We are submitting the corrected manuscript with the suggestion incorporated the manuscript. The manuscript has been revised as per the comments given by the reviewer, and our responses to all the comments are as follows:

 

Reviewer #1:

1. The first step in improving the article is to structure it based on the definition of benchmarking, paraphrasing "process of measuring key business metrics and practices and comparing them, within business areas or against a competitor or an industry peer as to understand how and where the organization (own or researched) needs to change in order to improve performance."

Response- We very much appreciate your suggestion and we updated the entire paper. The research proposes a framework using benchmarking guidelines. (please see lines 44-47)

2. The second step is identifying the core literature dedicated to benchmarking (seen as a tool or as a strategy of Total Quality Management and Quality Management) and present it as a foundation for research. The third step is identifying the ”best” in the industry, conduct research on its strengths and afterwards, based on quantitative research, build a model which can improve the activities and processes of other competitors in the industry.

Response- We have updated literature review. We have restructured the theoretical part and research design for better understanding. Hopefully you will find them logical. (please see lines 93-133).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

The proposed article studies the important issue -“Benchmarking on Performance Management in Automotive Industry: A Case Study”. From the overall presentation I would say that interesting research work has been done. The topic is also important for the readers of the journal. However, I have a few more significant challenges with the paper.  

• The theoretical part remains at a modest level. At this stage, it does not yet provide an in-depth review of the previous literature. It is more a description than analysis. Therefore, a more detailed explanation of theoretical background and research design needs to be supplemented for this paper to be published. 

• It would be appropriate to specify in more detail how this research differs from the already published paper that deals with a similar topic. To increase the significance of the results, the discussion part should embrace the differences and similarities among your findings and those of other scholars. 

• I see the sampling to be the most limiting factor of the presented paper (six vehicle service units). 

• The discussion and implications are rather short, and they should be extended. You also need to improve the practical and academic implications.  

• However, the paper has to underline the limits of the research and future work.
• See lines 292-293: “.5. Conclusions 292 This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is  unusually long or complex.” 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer’s Comments

 

Dear Editor,

Coauthors and I very much appreciated the encouraging, critical and constructive comments on this manuscript by the reviewer. The comments have been very thorough and useful in improving the manuscript. We strongly believe that the comments and suggestions have increased the scientific value of revised manuscript by many folds. We have taken them fully into account in revision. We are submitting the corrected manuscript with the suggestion incorporated the manuscript. The manuscript has been revised as per the comments given by the reviewer, and our responses to all the comments are as follows:

 

Reviewer #2:

1. The theoretical part remains at a modest level. At this stage, it does not yet provide an in-depth review of the previous literature. It is more a description than analysis. Therefore, a more detailed explanation of theoretical background and research design needs to be supplemented for this paper to be published.

Response- We very much appreciate your suggestion and we have updated literature review with addition of recent publications. We have restructured the theoretical part and research design for better understanding. Hopefully you will find them logical. (please see lines 93-133)

2. It would be appropriate to specify in more detail how this research differs from the already published paper that deals with a similar topic. To increase the significance of the results, the discussion part should embrace the differences and similarities among your findings and those of other scholars.

Response- Thank you so much for your minute observation and valuable comments. We have mentioned it in revised manuscript. (please see lines 44-47)

3. I see the sampling to be the most limiting factor of the presented paper (six vehicle service units).

Response- We are grateful for the suggestion. To be more clear, we have mentioned in revised manuscript that we are talking about six main car brends, and each brand represents all the services it owns in Bucharest area. (please see lines 69-71)

4. The discussion and implications are rather short, and they should be extended. You also need to improve the practical and academic implications.

Response- Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. A whole paragraph was extended and improved. (please see line 379-473). The practical and academic implications were also improved. (please see lines 476-518)

5. However, the paper has to underline the limits of the research and future work.

Response- We have taken reviewer’s comment in full consideration and we underlined the limits of the research and future work. (please see lines 526-531)

6. See lines 292-293: “.5. Conclusions 292 This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex.”

Response- Sorry for the lines 292-293, was just an error in typing.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to review this article. In this article, you have identified the risks and deficiencies faced by the companies which are providing after-sales services in the vehicle services. There are some good points and you have clearly highlighted the purpose of the study. In terms of review, you have further scope for development from a theoretical point of view. Although you have mentioned several models, I cannot see the actual application of these models. Please use theoretical underpinning based on these models in the literature review section.  The Methodology section is good but you should give justification for using the questionnaire. Results are good but you can add a better practical contribution in the conclusion section. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer’s Comments

 

Dear Editor,

Coauthors and I very much appreciated the encouraging, critical and constructive comments on this manuscript by the reviewer. The comments have been very thorough and useful in improving the manuscript. We strongly believe that the comments and suggestions have increased the scientific value of revised manuscript by many folds. We have taken them fully into account in revision. We are submitting the corrected manuscript with the suggestion incorporated the manuscript. The manuscript has been revised as per the comments given by the reviewer, and our responses to all the comments are as follows:

 

Reviewer #2:

1. In terms of review, you have further scope for development from a theoretical point of view.

Response- We very much appreciate your suggestion and we have updated literature review with addition of recent publications and we have restructured the theoretical part. Hopefully you will find them logical. (please see lines 93-122)

2. Although you have mentioned several models, I cannot see the actual application of these models. Please use theoretical underpinning based on these models in the literature review section.

Response- Because the mentioned models were not used in this research, the lines were deleted.

3. The Methodology section is good but you should give justification for using the questionnaire.

Response- We are grateful for the suggestion. To be more clear, the Methodology section was revised. (please see lines 135-184)

4. Results are good but you can add a better practical contribution in the conclusion section.

Response- Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. A whole paragraph was extended and improved. (please see line 379-473).

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I thank the authors for taking into consideration two of the suggestions made in my previous revision. 

Nevertheless, the idea of benchmarking is not covered in the paper from an empirical viewpoint (comparing with the best in the industry and implementing a strategy for adapting the best practices).

Therefore, my suggestion for the authors is to either change the title (according to their current research) or to change the approach, to follow the correct track of benchmarking concept implemented in practice.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your attention and rigor.

We have taken fully into account your suggestion and we slightly adjusted the title becoming “Framework on Performance Management in Automotive Industry: A Case Study”

Considering the Reviewer’s suggestions, we have made changes well reflected by the revised version of the manuscript. Even if we followed the track of benchmarking methodology, but because we could not reformulate the paper paraphrasing “comparing with the best in the industry and implementing a strategy for adapting the best practices”, we modified the Methodology and Research methodology sections according to the research performed. It is performance driving focus on defining the problem, setting the objective and hypotheses of research, collecting data and analysing the results.

We extensively improved the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

In the revised version, the manuscript has been extended and improved and my comments have been covered.

Best regards

Author Response

Considering the Reviewer’s suggestions, we have made changes that will be well reflected by the revised version of the manuscript. We modified the Methodology and Research methodology sections according to the research performed. It is performance driving focus on defining the problem, setting the objective and hypotheses of research, collecting data and analysing the results.

We extensively improved the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.