Extension of the Lean 5S Methodology to 6S with An Additional Layer to Ensure Occupational Safety and Health Levels
, Luis Romero 2,*, Jon Fernández 2, María del Mar Espinosa 2 and Manuel Domínguez 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The presented studies are very interesting and indicate the universality of the 5S method.
Author Response
There weren't any comments by the reviewer. We have checked the document.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper describes the addition of a 6th layer to the 5S manufacturing approach to include assurance of worker safety and health. The paper presents quite a detailed explanation of what 5S discipline means and why it is desirable to add a worker health and safety layer. The development and the experiences with 6S in a pilot so far have been recounted in a lively way and illustrated well.
Why are you adding in the title "an industrial laboratory"? It distracts from the main aim of the paper. Why the use of the word "expansion" and not "extension"? It also would be clearer if you change the title to something as: "Extension of the Lean 5S Manufacturing Technology to 6S with an additional layer to
ensure occupational safety and health levels". You can in the Introduction explain that the case study you performed was carried out in the Laboratory of the school.
The Introduction starts for a reader the wrong way. If in line 13 the term 6S is added explaining what it will mean a reader will get right-away a sharp idea of the aim of the development.
Minor comments:
Line 47: 'optimised'.
Line 166: What do you mean with the word 'discipline' here. You have to explain it.
Line 180: Most readers will know where the acronym PDCA stands for, nevertheless you have to spell it out once.
Line 186 and further: The verb 'to do' is used much, but 'to perform' or 'to conduct' would be much better.
Line 428: 'than' should be 'from'.
There may be some more, but this is what I picked up reading the paper.
Author Response
Why are you adding in the title "an industrial laboratory"? It distracts from the main aim of the paper. Why the use of the word "expansion" and not "extension"? It also would be clearer if you change the title to something as: "Extension of the Lean 5S Manufacturing Technology to 6S with an additional layer to ensure occupational safety and health levels". You can in the Introduction explain that the case study you performed was carried out in the Laboratory of the school.
We have changed the title. We have explained that the case study we performed was carried out in the Laboratory of the engineering school with similar technological resources as used in the manufacturing industry.
“Extension of the Lean 5S methodology to 6S with an additional layer to ensure occupational safety and health levels”
The Introduction starts for a reader the wrong way. If in line 13 the term 6S is added explaining what it will mean a reader will get right-away a sharp idea of the aim of the development.
We have added this paragraph at the beginning: “The additional 6S phase (Safety-Security) thoroughly reviews all areas of an industrial plant by analysing the risks at each workstation, which let employees be fitted out with protection resources depending on each their personal characteristics and to guarantee the safety of the workstation by strictly complying with occupational safety and health and machinery use standards, which must hold a CE certificate of compliance”.
Minor comments: We have checked the article.
· Line 47: 'optimised'.
· Line 166: What do you mean with the word 'discipline' here. You have to explain it.
· Line 180: Most readers will know where the acronym PDCA stands for, nevertheless you have to spell it out once.
· Line 186 and further: The verb 'to do' is used much, but 'to perform' or 'to conduct' would be much better.
· Line 428: 'than' should be 'from'.
There may be some more, but this is what I picked up reading the paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper expresses on an innovative theme, centered on the proposal of a methodology.
Despite the interest in the area of health and safety at work, the way it is structured does not present scientific soundness and makes it difficult to read and understand the text.
Introduction: presents a proposal of 6S methodology based on the recognized 5S, but at no point in the text is a brief introduction or explanation to the methodology 5S.
Ln 132 - presents the scope of the directives, I think it is unnecessary to describe Community directives in a scientific article.
Material and method: It presents excessive texto on bullet points, which, despite facilitating reading, does not fit the scientific writing of an article resulting from subjective evaluation associated with the theme
Ln 215 - concepts not previously described (seiri, seiton, seiso ...)
Results:
Bullet points are still used in excess, could be transformed into tables (?)
Ln 360 - gives continuity to the excessive character of Community directives
The chosen images should have superior quality and be treated in a more appealing way.
Discussion and conclusions:
The discussion does not present a single bibliographical reference, in order to substantiate (or contradict) the results. The discussion should be built on previous work, where some comparisons can be made.
Ln 459 - It is not possible to present audit result in na article, let alone with the company logo (Comillas?).
Author Response
The paper expresses on an innovative theme, centered on the proposal of a methodology.
Despite the interest in the area of health and safety at work, the way it is structured does not present scientific soundness and makes it difficult to read and understand the text.
Introduction: presents a proposal of 6S methodology based on the recognized 5S, but at no point in the text is a brief introduction or explanation to the methodology 5S.
We have added this paragraph: “As many people know, 5S is a work space management method which emerged in Japan as a consequence of the application of the kaizen culture (continuous improvement in the personal, family, social and professional life). The original concept of the 5S has socio-historical and philosophical roots” (Kobayashi, 2005).
Ln 132 - presents the scope of the directives, I think it is unnecessary to describe Community directives in a scientific article.
We think that it’s necessary to include this information because maybe some readers do not have to know the scope of the directives.
Material and method: It presents excessive text on bullet points, which, despite facilitating reading, does not fit the scientific writing of an article resulting from subjective evaluation associated with the theme
We have restructured the text format in order to better understand the content.
Ln 215 - concepts not previously described (seiri, seiton, seiso ...)
The 6S’ are the initials of six Japanese words which represent each of the five stages that make up the methodology. They have been translated into English keeping the meaning of the original concept.
Results: Bullet points are still used in excess, could be transformed into tables (?)
We have restructured the text format in order to understand better the content.
Ln 360 - gives continuity to the excessive character of Community directives
The chosen images should have superior quality and be treated in a more appealing way.
We think that it’s necessary to include this information because maybe some readers do not have to know the scope of the directives. We have improved the images.
Discussion and conclusions: The discussion does not present a single bibliographical reference, in order to substantiate (or contradict) the results. The discussion should be built on previous work, where some comparisons can be made.
We totally agree. We have improved this section and we have included some references.
Ln 459 - It is not possible to present audit result in an article, let alone with the company logo (Comillas?).
Comillas University was the institution where the study was carried out. Table 1 corresponds to a standard format for the audit development by the institution where the methodology was implemented.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
if it is considered appropriate to place the check list, it should be attached and (perhaps) not in the body of texto.Author Response
We have removed the checklist in the body of the article and we have added an Appendix at the end of the document. Thank you for your comments.
