Analyzing the Factors for Implementing Make-to-Order Manufacturing System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is a manuscript interesting to read, about identifying the critical success factors for the implementation of MTO in passenger car manufacturing. The authors organized their paper in six sections, where they present an analysis of the factors that need to be considered for implementing the MTO successfully.

Thank you for the opportunity to read this manuscript, and please allow me to make a few suggestions to improve it.

Please define/explain to the readers all the acronyms you use when first appear in the text (CSF for example)

I recommend the authors to follow the instructions for authors of this prestigious journal, especially the template (especially for text citations [1], [2], [3], bibliography format, etc.) https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions

I recommend the authors to pay more attention to the details in the formatting of the text, for example table 5 seems overlapped/interspersed with the numbering of lines 244-246.

The manuscript structure should be improved, since some sections seem like being long and others being too short, which could confuse readers and make it difficult to follow the research flow. I recommend that the authors detail some more on some parts of the research methodology adopted, including the research design, sample size, data collection, the companies used in the study etc. I recommend the authors to detail section 4.2 a little bit more than in a short paragraph and table 6, it seems too brief. I recommend the same thing in the case of sections 3.1, 4.4 etc.

I suggest a little more detailed Introduction/background section to provide more context and motivation for the study. At the end of the Introduction, the other sections of the manuscript should be discussed in a few words.

I recommend the authors to provide a more detailed discussion of the results and their implications, a critical analysis of the results. The authors should provide a more in-depth discussion of the strengths versus what other  authors already did in their published studies. It would be interesting to read a little bit in this manuscript how the authors compare the results of their study with other studies that have used same/different methods for identifying CSFs, ranking strategies etc. in the automobile sector.

I believe that the paper can be improved by a more detailed discussion on the practical implications of the findings, such as how decision-makers can use the CSFs and strategies in the automobile sector, or even how could it be applied in the real world. It would be interesting to read about authors opinion whether their results are generalizable to other companies or sectors.

I suggest that the authors present a little bit  more details on the challenges facing the passenger car manufacturing industry in implementing MTO. This could provide a more complete picture of the issues facing the industry and may help readers comprehend the practical implications of the findings.

At the end of the manuscript, I believe that the authors should discuss the limitations and future directions of their study in more detail to help the readers of this journal understand the scope and applicability of the study.

The manuscript could benefit from the inclusion of a comparison with other similar or better methods that could have been used in the experiment described in the manuscript, or perhaps this could be done in authors’ future studies (e.g., Delphi method, fuzzy logic, cluster analysis, regression analysis etc.).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

For the majority of final products in the automotive sector, so-called mass customisation is used. This is a strategy of manufacturing products that are relatively individualised and customised, while retaining the costs and speed of mass production. In case of MTO (make-to-order) manufacturing, products are manufactured only after an order has been received. The article does not clearly specify the class and group of vehicles for the use of the proposed assessment in the implementation of the MTO strategy. For the overall assumption of the passenger car group, the results obtained are obvious: “The market” is the most important and critical success factor for the implementation pf MTO in passenger car manufacturing. With increased diversification of final products, greater flexibility is achieved while increasing lead time and production costs aiming for High Mix – Low Volume strategy.

The purpose of the article was correctly defined and completely fulfilled. In the strategic terms, the AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) and TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) methods proposed in the article are correct.

The indexing in the formulas (3), (4), (5) needs to be improved:

If in matrix (3) there are A₁, A₂, …, A_i , … , A_J, then i=1,2,…,J

While in the same matrix (3) there is:

In the first column: f₁₁, f₂₁, …, f_i1, …, f_j1, so i=1,2,…,j

In the fourth column: f_1j,f_2j,…, f_ij,…, f_Jj, hence it follows that i=1,2,…,J and j=…j???

In the first verse f₁₁, f₁₂,…, f_1j,…f_1n, so j=1,2,…, n

In formula (4) there is i=1,2,…n and the name of the second subscript is not identified ??=1,2,…, J

In formula (5) j=1,2,…J and I=1,2,…n

It is recommended to supplement the literature review with publications from the last 2-3 years.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

This paper identifies and prioritizes the critical success factors which can affect the implementation of Make To Order and ranks the different strategies for implementing an MTO manufacturing system for passenger cars. The authors propose an integrated approach where the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is used for prioritizing factors, and the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is deployed to rank the strategies. I have the following observations:

 

Introduction, line 31: customer requirements.

Provide the structure/outline of the paper at the end of the introduction section.

The absence of application of MTO to the automotive industry is not enough research contribution. The authors need to stress the research contributions of this study in the introduction section.

The authors can provide a rationale behind the section on TOPSIS. Similarly, why AHP and why not ANP, BWM, etc? Please discuss this in the methodology section or sub-section 2.2.

Result and discussion, line 385: Table 8.

Section 5 (Results and Discussion): This section needs a further extension. What is the real value for managers once the ranking is performed? Please provide managerial implications. 

Section 6 (Conclusion): Please provide limitations of the study and future recommendations.

 

I think the English of the paper is acceptable. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for your interesting paper. Here are some comments which can make it even better:

1. Need to adjust the refeerencing in the paper in accordance to the journal template

2. Line 53 - double ( - so probably one needs to be erased

3. You like to have paper structure set in introduction

4. Line 60 - who has classified manfucturing systems to MTO and MTS -  reference is missing?

5.Line 67 - based on what you state that many manufacturing companies are switching from MTS to MTO - reference?

6. Line 106-110 - refernce is missing for the conclion / statement

7. Arranging the tables 1 and 2 in accordance to journal template

8. Table 5 is strange - so pls correct

9. Why did you choose 10 years old data for the research? A lot has changed in the last 10 year and this may lead to the wrong conclusions in the paper

10. Line 257-260 - needs references for the statements in the text

11. Table 7 - source? or it is yours based on the literature review?

12. How did you find the experts? Out of how many? ... Describe the sample

13. Conclusion is repeating of the results from the research - what did you conclude out of the results? What are the proposal for the future research?

 

Moderate proofreading needed although not an English language professor

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Indexing is still wrong. Line 254: „Aj represents the solutions or alternatives j, j = 1,2, .. . ,J” while in line 256 “Ai wrt each criterion Fj”. So is „Ai” or „Aj” and thus „Fi” or „Fj” ???

Please check the file to which I have attached more incorrect indexes.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.  

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have addressed my concerns in the revised version. Goodluck.

The English needs minor adjustments.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive feedback.

As per your suggestion, minor grammatical errors have been corrected and the same has been highlighted in colored (Red) text in the revised manuscript. 

Thank you once again. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for an updated version of the paper. At this moment I don't have any other remarks

Author Response

Thank you for  your positive feedback.