Applying a Hybrid Kano/Quality Function Deployment Integration Approach to Wood Desk Designs for Open-Plan Offices

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The paper is interesting and shows the preparatory processes for office furniture design.

This paper proposes an elaborate technique that consolidates the Kano model and QFD

VERY MODESTLY INTRODUCED THE READER TO THE AREA OF OFFICE FURNITURE DESIGN SELECTION. This area is very rich and the modeling of the space depends on many usability factors, whether it is open offices, closed offices, offices with representative characteristics, or offices adapted to the engineering work system. No Literature Review in this area before moving on to open office selection. E.g.:

Bumgardner, M. S., & Nicholls, D. L. (2020). Sustainable practices in furniture design: A literature study on customization, biomimicry, competitiveness, and product communication. Forests, 11(12), 1277.

Ko, Y. C., Lo, C. H., & Chen, C. C. (2018). Influence of personality traits on consumer preferences: the case of office chair selection by attractiveness. Sustainability, 10(11), 4183.

et al

 The paper lacks a stronger indication of the principles of methodical selection of respondents. These processes are also defined in the literature. E.g.:

Bansak, K., Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J., & Yamamoto, T. (2018). The number of choice tasks and survey satisficing in conjoint experiments. Political Analysis, 26(1), 112-119.

Weng, J., Di, X., Wang, C., Wang, J., & Mao, L. (2018). A bus service evaluation method from passenger's perspective based on satisfaction surveys: A case study of Beijing, China. Sustainability, 10(8), 2723.

et al

Figure 7 - although an explanation of the color scheme of the points was introduced in the body of the study the inclusion of a legend to the figure will significantly facilitate the interpretation of the data

Line 273 - no reference to literature indicating authors directly 

Line 285 - citing only at the end of the sentence: when citing the author, it is helpful to indicate a citation after the name

Conclusions reasonable, although it should be pointed out that the proposed methodology also allows for the study of other furniture systems and other utility products.

Author Response

(Please see the attachment)

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We have revised the valuable comments from you and the reviewers carefully, and did our best to modify the manuscript. The responses to the comments were listed below point by point.

Best Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

1.       the aims and rationale of the study are clearly and succinctly stated.

2.       The methodology is written clearly, concisely, and succinctly, so that it is possible to repeat the research and so that it is possible to achieve the set goals.

3.       I consider the interpretation of the results correct and clear.

4.       I believe that the article will bring the desired rating. However, I recommend paying attention to comments that aim to improve the quality of the manuscript.

5.       I consider the interpretation of the results and conclusions to be correct.

6.       The authors not clearly emphasized the strengths of their study/theory/methods/argument. It would be great if they paid more attention to the Introduction. This part seems quite chaotic. It is not clear who discovered what in the matter and why it is important to focus on the set goals. I consider the linking of individual quoted parts to be a minor shortcoming.

7.       I consider the structure of the manuscript to be appropriate. But the Introduction part must be revised.

8.       In the Materials and Methods section, the author describes the development of the method in the Quality Function Distribution (QFD) chapter. Rather, it belongs in the Introduction chapter. The principle of the method should be explained here. The model on which it works.

Author Response

(Please see the attachment)

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We have revised the valuable comments from you and the reviewers carefully, and did our best to modify the manuscript. The responses to the comments were listed below point by point.

Best Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article is not appropriate for this journal. I suggest a different outlet. 

I found the article difficult to understand for several reasons: 1) the paper is outside the journal's scope; 2) the English grammar is poor; 3) some of the figures were of poor quality; 4) the discussion section did not make sense to me.

Reviewer 2 Report

The work is of a typical nature adapted to The term "human dimension" refers to how and why people like to manage resources and how people influence resource management decisions in office furniture manufacturing.
A selected methodology for assessing furniture customization by analyzing basic, functional and excitement factors is presented.

The literature review applied to  furniture evaluation should allow for a more reliable analysis of office furniture but also relate to other types of wood furniture application. Lack of consideration of application factors of natural raw material with specific functional characteristics. The Authors did not include a review of the types of wood office furniture groups used in relation to classes of use and value system both in terms of production and art.
The literature review should be significantly expanded .
The choice of evaluation method seems correct and the methodology was presented in a clear manner.
There is no reference to other methods of classifying the functional arrangement of office furniture elements using digital tools for the ergonomics of the use of open office space.
The results were presented in a readable manner.
The discussion is unfortunately very poor with regard to comparison with other systems for assessing the impact of factors on office space planning. Needs to be expanded to include a review of the available literature and an indication of links to other systems for assessing furniture selection preferences.
Conclusions brief and unfortunately oversimplified. They do not fully reflect the presented results of the conducted research.