Production Scheduling of Personalized Fashion Goods in a Mass Customization Environment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper proposes a two-stage algorithm to address the scheduling and high cost of mass customization in fashion. The topic is interesting. I have the following two concerns.
First, the paper does not show a sufficient literature review in this area. Many important articles are missed. For example,
- Coordination and Enhancement Schemes for Quick Response Mass Customization Supply Chains with Consumer Returns and Salvage Value Considerations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Systems. 50(2), 673-685, 2020.
- Quality Management in Outsourced Fashion Supply Chains: An Exploratory Case Study. Production and Planning Control. 31(9), 757-769, 2020
Second, the paper develops an algorithm. However, it does not show proof of whether or not the algorithm can work. I would suggest that the author could conduct numerical or experimental studies to validate the algorithm.
Author Response
First, the paper does not show a sufficient literature review in this area. Many important articles are missed. For example,
- Coordination and Enhancement Schemes for Quick Response Mass Customization Supply Chains with Consumer Returns and Salvage Value Considerations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Systems. 50(2), 673-685, 2020.
- Quality Management in Outsourced Fashion Supply Chains: An Exploratory Case Study. Production and Planning Control. 31(9), 757-769, 2020
Response:
Added additional current publications.
Second, the paper develops an algorithm. However, it does not show proof of whether or not the algorithm can work. I would suggest that the author could conduct numerical or experimental studies to validate the algorithm.
Response:
Generally, we agree that numerical studies would help evaluate the performance of the presented algorithm. Nevertheless, the focus of the paper is not on the performance of the algorithm as such. In this regard the idea of a proof of functionality is considered and a corresponding paragraph has been introduced. Additionally, the chapter on future outlooks picks up on the idea of a numerical study based on real-world data.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has several major issues regarding novelties, writings, and contributions. I have the following comments as follows:
- The format of the paper is a big issue. Correct the format in a proper way. The abstract should contain the details of the study and the findings in a very constructive way.
- The research gap should be adequately explained. In the introduction, please rearrange/rewrite so that each authors’/most of the authors' contributions should be linked. Please try to maintain the literature sequentially. The comparative study with these papers, “An improved evolution strategy hybridization with simulated annealing for permutation flow shop scheduling problems; Fast Evolutionary Algorithm for Flow Shop Scheduling Problems” theoretically is needed in the last part of the introduction to show the novelty of this study.
- The introduction should be based on the exact research gap, and the literature review should be based on the specific keywords-based review, and finally, make an author's contribution table to show the novelty and effectiveness of the study. Show all referenced papers in the table to show the contribution of this study.
- Write proper managerial insights to show the industry managers' benefit from this research and compare this study with “The Selection of the Sustainable Suppliers by the Development of a Decision Support Framework Based on Analytical Hierarchical Process and Fuzzy Inference System" theoretically and methodologically the applicability of the proposed research.
- Please write the significant findings in conclusions. Do not mention all assumptions which have been indicated within the model.
- What is the data source of the numerical experiment? Please mention that the data is from industry or literature, i.e., accurate data or artificial data.
- Conclusions should be updated with more findings, limitations, and future extensions.
Author Response
- The format of the paper is a big issue. Correct the format in a proper way. The abstract should contain the details of the study and the findings in a very constructive way.
Response:
Reworked the abstract and made the contributions clearer.
- The research gap should be adequately explained. In the introduction, please rearrange/rewrite so that each authors’/most of the authors' contributions should be linked. Please try to maintain the literature sequentially. The comparative study with these papers, “An improved evolution strategy hybridization with simulated annealing for permutation flow shop scheduling problems; Fast Evolutionary Algorithm for Flow Shop Scheduling Problems” theoretically is needed in the last part of the introduction to show the novelty of this study.
Response:
Adjusted the introduction to make the research gap more clearer.
Since the refered paper only partially link to the topic of the study at hand a reference to it has been included when discussing the choice for level scheduling approaches as compared to flow shop and job shop approaches.
- The introduction should be based on the exact research gap, and the literature review should be based on the specific keywords-based review, and finally, make an author's contribution table to show the novelty and effectiveness of the study. Show all referenced papers in the table to show the contribution of this study.
Response:
As mentioned before the introduction has been adjusted to make the research gap more clearer. Since only two publications exist that in their focus can directly be compared to the study a table might seem superfluous, but the contributions of these papers are recaptured. Additionally, the localization in the operation research literature as been picked up in the introduction as well to place the paper there as well. However, an in-depth discussion in this regard has been avoided since it is not the aim of the paper to provide a more efficient and novel approach from an algorithmi design perspective.
- Write proper managerial insights to show the industry managers' benefit from this research and compare this study with “The Selection of the Sustainable Suppliers by the Development of a Decision Support Framework Based on Analytical Hierarchical Process and Fuzzy Inference System" theoretically and methodologically the applicability of the proposed research.
Response:
Chapter 5.2 already discusses the insights managers can draw from the study and details different aspects thereof.
A comparison with the quoted paper does not make sense, since the methodology is completely different and the focus of the quoted paper is neither on the fashion industry, nor on mass customization environments. Inserted it as a citation as the point where the focus is on supplier relations.
- Please write the significant findings in conclusions. Do not mention all assumptions which have been indicated within the model.
Response:
A listing of the assumptions is required since they pose significant limitations to the study (See comment 7.). To make it clearer for the reader which part of the conclusions is about findings and which is about limitations a sub-division into managerial implications and limitations has been used. Added as a heading for the first part “General Discussion” which summarizes the content thereof and makes it easier to read.
- What is the data source of the numerical experiment? Please mention that the data is from industry or literature, i.e., accurate data or artificial data.
Response:
As argued in the context of the first reviewer, no numerical studies have been conducted, since the focus of the paper is not on the performance of the proposed algorithm but on the conceptualization of the underlying problem at hand. Thus, no data sources can be listed. While fitting data sets are rather sparse due to the modular structure of the problem and the inclusion of parts, a test based on existing test beds might be problematic at best. Nevertheless, the idea is not without merit and the proposal of a numerical study based on real world data has been added as a potential topic for future studies.
- Conclusions should be updated with more findings, limitations, and future extensions.
Response:
Chapter 5.3 already includes a discussion of the limitations and potential extensions. Nevertheless, it has been expanded upon.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper can be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Dear Editor in Chief,
Dear Reviewers,
attached you find the revised version of our manuscript. After the first round and accompanied by major revisions, you suggested a final revision regarding the English language and style. For this reason, we have carried out a very comprehensive proofreading and correction of the manuscript which was jointly carried out with a professional English interpreter. All changes were made in ‘trace mode’ to make sure all modifications are visible for you.
With regard to the changes, it was mainly individual sentences or words that were corrected, both to facilitate the reading flow and to optimize the linguistic expression. In addition, spelling mistakes or doubled words were eliminated as well as punctuation was revised. For the exact details of the changes, we would kindly ask you to look at the traceable changes in the manuscript.
We hope that the changes are what you expected. If there are any further requests, please feel free to contact us and we will make adjustments at short notice.
Many thanks and we are very much looking forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Katharina Schuck
Carolin Hitzegrad
Prof. Dr. Jens K. Perret
