An Application of Quality Function Deployment to Explore a Product Design Concept—A Case Study of a Triple-Effect Green Energy Generator for the Taiwan Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors please follow below comments:

- In some parts of the article, the word "we ... " is used. Past form should be used in writing the article. For example, line 238 " We can see..." ; line 244: "We know that..." or ....

- In conclusion section, only the important results obtained from the research should be stated, lines 353-370 should be deleted

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

We thank the reviewers for their suggestions on the original manuscript, which has been revised and edited.

1. Past form should be used in writing the article.

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I kept the “red” for major revised for your references.

2. In conclusion section, only the important results obtained from the research should be stated, lines 353-370 should be deleted.

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I agree to keep only the important findings in the Conclusion chapter and to delete lines 353-370.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article  discusses the application of Quality Function Deployment (QFD) in designing a triple-effect green energy generator for Taiwan. While the study makes some valuable contributions to the field, it also has several weak points.
Here are the main weaknesses and suggested improvements:
- The study acknowledges the need for input from experts in different fields, but it doesn't elaborate on how these experts can be involved.
- The study only explores the first stage of QFD, which is customer requirements to product engineering measures. It misses the opportunity to delve into the second stage, which involves component development. Investigating component characteristics would be crucial for refining the product planning and ensuring that the proposed design can be effectively implemented.
- The section (2.2.1) mentions a flow chart (Figure 1) but does not provide any description or explanation of its content. Provide a brief description of what the flow chart illustrates to guide readers through the research process.
-  The selection criteria for both experts and respondents are briefly listed but without much context. The authors should provide more information on why these specific criteria were chosen and how they relate to the research objectives.
- 26 customers is a relatively small sample, which may result in some degree of inaccuracy or limited representativeness of customer opinions. The larger the sample, the more reliable the results can be obtained. The authors should explain whether the sample is representative and guarantees the reliability of the results obtained.
- The authors should provide information whether they confirmed the representativeness of the sample (clients and experts).
-With such a small research sample of clients and experts, limited sources of data (experts from one company) and only 26 clients, it is necessary to define and provide the limitations that we deal with in the adopted research methodology.
- In conlusion, the application section would benefit from more technical details, explanations, and quantifiable metrics to support the identified design criteria and engineering measures. This will provide a clearer and more comprehensive picture of the product's design and development process.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

We thank the reviewers for their suggestions on the original manuscript, which has been revised and edited.

1. The study acknowledges the need for input from experts in different fields, but it doesn't elaborate on how these experts can be involved.

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Detailed instructions have been added to the Conclusions section. I kept the “red” for major revised for your references.

2. The study only explores the first stage of QFD, which is customer requirements to product engineering measures. It misses the opportunity to delve into the second stage, which involves component development. Investigating component characteristics would be crucial for refining the product planning and ensuring that the proposed design can be effectively implemented.

Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

Since the concept proposed in this study is innovative and there is no similar case study in Taiwan during the research period, the study only focuses on this innovative concept to explore the customer needs first. The second phase involving component development and testing will be the next step in our research.

3. The section (2.2.1) mentions a flow chart (Figure 1) but does not provide any description or explanation of its content. Provide a brief description of what the flow chart illustrates to guide readers through the research process.

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I kept the “red” for major revised for your references.

4. The selection criteria for both experts and respondents are briefly listed but without much context. The authors should provide more information on why these specific criteria were chosen and how they relate to the research objectives.

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I kept the “red” for major revised for your references.

5. 26 customers is a relatively small sample, which may result in some degree of inaccuracy or limited representativeness of customer opinions. The larger the sample, the more reliable the results can be obtained. The authors should explain whether the sample is representative and guarantees the reliability of the results obtained.

6. The authors should provide information whether they confirmed the representativeness of the sample (clients and experts).

7. With such a small research sample of clients and experts, limited sources of data (experts from one company) and only 26 clients, it is necessary to define and provide the limitations that we deal with in the adopted research methodology.

Recommendations for Points 5, 6, and 7:

Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

We understand that by expanding the scope of the study and increasing the sample size, more users' needs for green energy products can be collected and solutions can be suggested by experts, which will make the overall data analysis more accurate and better meet customer needs. In this study, we have only conducted the first phase of discussion on customer needs. We will also conduct subsequent research on component development and power generation testing. When the feasibility of this concept can be verified, we will publish a product model and collect Conduct comprehensive discussions with a larger sample size to facilitate the development team to make more precise modifications based on market needs.

8. In conlusion, the application section would benefit from more technical details, explanations, and quantifiable metrics to support the identified design criteria and engineering measures. This will provide a clearer and more comprehensive picture of the product's design and development process.

We appreciate your support of this study, This study focuses on understanding customer needs due to the innovative nature of the concept, and using QFD to derive design elements and engineering measures to meet customer needs. In the next study, we will invite experts in the fields of materials, mechanical, and electrical engineering to conduct the second stage of QFD on the details of component characteristics, which will provide a more complete reference for the design and development of the subsequent products.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this work, the author presents a novel design concept for a three-effect green energy generator that combines solar water heaters with wind turbines and thermoelectric devices. The author elucidates the use of Quality Function Deployment (QFD) to investigate user requirements and expectations for this innovative concept, aiming to enhance corresponding design measures. Additionally, the paper provides a detailed discussion of the research and survey process, expert interviews, and the construction of a quality house, making it an instructive piece of work. This work is interesting, and certainly fits well with the journal of Sustainability. Nevertheless, to my opinion the manuscript presents some weaknesses that need additional modification.

1. The language in the abstract lacks conciseness and logical coherence. For instance, the introduction of the concept of quality functionality is abrupt and excessively verbose. Additionally, there are evident punctuation issues in lines 17-21 on the first page of the presentation.

2. The concept of combining solar energy with wind and thermoelectric energy sources to enhance system efficiency and ensure a reliable energy supply is intriguing. However, the fundamental mechanisms of the tri-hybrid renewable energy system are not adequately elucidated in this manuscript. For instance, how does the device synergize the three energy sources? What level of energy savings can be achieved? It is recommended that the author clearly articulates the energy efficiency aspects to demonstrate the allure of the tri-hybrid energy generator.

3. As for thermoelectric devices, I believe this section lacks depth. It would be more convincing to enumerate the types of thermoelectric materials and provide reasons for the selection of nickel-chromium alloys. Additionally, when the author mentions the challenge of achieving a significant temperature gradient for effective thermal energy collection, it would be beneficial to explore whether this issue has been addressed in the chosen materials and power generation devices. I recommend that the author utilize these arguments to explain their findings and delve into more discussions at the material level.

4. The author's three-effect green energy generator is a novel idea, and the generator's design has the potential to be widely used in Taiwan. I am very interested in the green energy generator, but the device design diagram is not clear enough. I suggest the author enhance this section with more detailed diagrams.

5. To ensure the integrity of the research, it is recommended that the authors supplement the thermoelectric mechanism of shape memory alloys.

6. Some main figures and appendix images appear blurry and may benefit from additional processing to enhance presentation quality.

7. There are several formatting errors in the references:

(a) Lack of website information: References 1, 25, 32.

(b) If the DOI is used instead of the website, it is recommended to standardize the format: References 33, 34, 40, 44.

(c) The format of reference is not standardized: Reference 25.

(d) Inconsistency in capitalization of the initial letters in the title: References 3, 9, 16, 24.

(e) Incorrect format of the journal name: Reference 37.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

-

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

We thank the reviewers for their suggestions on the original manuscript, which has been revised and edited.

1. The language in the abstract lacks conciseness and logical coherence. For instance, the introduction of the concept of quality functionality is abrupt and excessively verbose. Additionally, there are evident punctuation issues in lines 17-21 on the first page of the presentation. 

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I kept the “red” for major revised for your references.

2. The concept of combining solar energy with wind and thermoelectric energy sources to enhance system efficiency and ensure a reliable energy supply is intriguing. However, the fundamental mechanisms of the tri-hybrid renewable energy system are not adequately elucidated in this manuscript. For instance, how does the device synergize the three energy sources? What level of energy savings can be achieved? It is recommended that the author clearly articulates the energy efficiency aspects to demonstrate the allure of the tri-hybrid energy generator.

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. In Chapter 2.2.3, the researcher explained to the respondents in detail the operation principle of this device, including the heat source of the thermoelectric device and the advantage that the small wind turbine can operate independently.

This study has only been conducted to understand the customer requirements and design elements of this concept through QFD, and it is expected that product testing will be conducted in the next phase of the study before the specific power generation can be illustrated.

3. As for thermoelectric devices, I believe this section lacks depth. It would be more convincing to enumerate the types of thermoelectric materials and provide reasons for the selection of nickel-chromium alloys. Additionally, when the author mentions the challenge of achieving a significant temperature gradient for effective thermal energy collection, it would be beneficial to explore whether this issue has been addressed in the chosen materials and power generation devices. I recommend that the author utilize these arguments to explain their findings and delve into more discussions at the material level.

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I kept the “red” for major revised for your references.

4. The author's three-effect green energy generator is a novel idea, and the generator's design has the potential to be widely used in Taiwan. I am very interested in the green energy generator, but the device design diagram is not clear enough. I suggest the author enhance this section with more detailed diagrams.

We appreciate your support of this study, and we will be conducting a study to develop and test products based on the conclusions of this study, and detailed design drawings will be published in the next study.

5. To ensure the integrity of the research, it is recommended that the authors supplement the thermoelectric mechanism of shape memory alloys.

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I kept the “red” for major revised for your references.

6. Some main figures and appendix images appear blurry and may benefit from additional processing to enhance presentation quality.

Yes, I agree. Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

7. There are several formatting errors in the references

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Corrections have been completed.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors of the manuscript “ Application of Quality Function Deployment to Explore Product 3 Design Concept – A Case Study of Triple-Effect Green Energy Generator for Taiwan Environmen” have provided an study on analysis of 3D concept of triple effect green energy generator. The study was properly methodologically organized. Up-to-date scientific methods and techniques were used. Among then are roof matrix and quality function deployment. However, there are several aspects which should be improved.

1.     Authors used 24 outdated references (more than 50%) (older than 5 years). Please reconsider the reference list with more up-to-date studies where it is possible.

2.     Line 75

Repeating the QFD abbreviation explanation is unnecessary once it has already been decoded one row up. Please correct.

3.     Line 95

Please add HOQ explanation of the abbreviation where it first appears.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

We thank the reviewers for their suggestions on the original manuscript, which has been revised and edited.

1. Authors used 24 outdated references (more than 50%) (older than 5 years). Please reconsider the reference list with more up-to-date studies where it is possible.

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. We have added three references in the Introduction section, I kept the “red” for major revised for your references.

2.  Line 75

Repeating the QFD abbreviation explanation is unnecessary once it has already been decoded one row up. Please correct.

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Corrections have been completed.

I kept the “red” for major revised for your references.

3. Line 95

Please add HOQ explanation of the abbreviation where it first appears.

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Corrections have been completed.

I kept the “red” for major revised for your references.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

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

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is regarding the concept of a triple-effect green energy generator that combines a wind turbine and a thermoelectric device on a solar water heater as proposed by the authors. Quality function deployment (QFD) analysis was carried out using a small population data. A design was proposed on the basis of statistical data which is mostly subjective and hence contains no authenticity. Although the research ambition is correct and may result in conclusive outcome when applied more objectively, at the moment design is neither practically fabricated nor tested on simulation software. Currently the paper is a preliminary investigation towards a more substantial goal when accomplished. The adopted approach is not authentic with weak analysis and discussion. Hence the paper may be rejected. The following points are forwarded as a guideline for authors.

1.       Abstract is poorly organized. It should have three equal portions including significance of the intended research, current research details and outcomes/ conclusion. Presently, focus is mainly on the first section.

2.       Introduction needs to have a progressive flow starting from the basics including the need of current work, literature review of available/ alternate designs, identification of research gap, envisioned theme of planned work and benefits of the work when successfully executed.

3.       Literature review needs to be significantly strengthened to include more closely linked work highlighting the research gap.

4.       Figure no 1 claims to display different brands for solar water heater. Indicate the difference for better illustration.

5.       “Figure 2. shows that solar water heaters are already popularly used in Taiwan”. Can 1 figure validate your claim for complete Taiwan or you have any statistics to confirm your claim. Since I cannot see the reference for “according to the statistics of Taiwan Energy Bureau, among the 9.7GW of Taiwan's photovoltaic installation capacity in 2022, rooftop-type photovoltaic accounts for about 65%, reaching 6.3GW.”     

6.       What is the difference between the outcome of Figure 1 and Figure 2?

7.       Why age range of 35 to 55 was selected for participants.

8.       Application of QFD analysis should be justified in benefits comparison with other available tools.

9.       The conclusions are sketchy and not substantial to constitute a journal publication.

10.   Referencing style and pattern may be rechecked for conformance to journal guidelines.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, please consider the following to improve your article:

Title:

Do not use abbreviations in the title and use the full word- “QFD”.

Abstract:

Line 15: Please use passive form in sentence: “we propose a product concept of a triple-effect …”.

Line 18: The research results should be summarized at the end of the abstract.

Keywords:

Sort alphabetically

Introduction:

Line 24-38: All the information given in this paragraph needs to be referenced.

Line 63-64: Please eliminate Figure 1 and 2.

Line 78-89: All the information given in this paragraph needs to be referenced.

Review of past research is weak. The research that has already been done in the field related to your research should be added to the introduction.

Material and Methods:

Line 129-143: The sentences used in this part should be moved to the introduction.

Line 185-198: In the introduction section, you did not mention anything about QFD. These contents should be transferred to the introduction.

Results:

Line 306 and Line 313: Please use passive form in sentence: “From the one-on-one interviews, we collected 26 …” and “We invited Nitinol Innovative…”.

Conclusion:

In this section, only the important results obtained from the research should be stated, lines 439-456 should be deleted.

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the analysis is conducted with an innovative methodology very different from those that examine the preferences of individuals to facilitate the adoption of eco-sustainable innovations in line with the United Nations Development Goals. About this, I think the following contributions are noted which consider aspects related to individual preferences and socio-economic characteristics:

De Salvo, M., Notaro S., Cucuzza G., Giuffrida L., Signorello G., Protecting the local landscape or reducing greenhouse gas emissions? A study on social acceptance and preferences towards the installation of a wind farm, Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 13, Issue 22 November-2 2021 Article number 12755

 

De Salvo, M., Signorello, G., Cucuzza, G., Begalli, D., Agnoli, L., Estimating preferences for controlling beach erosion in Sicily Aestimum, 2018, 72, pp. 27–38

I think this paper is very interesting and I suggest you only few minor revisions.

Please, check also these points:

line 49; 62; 64; 276: probably the full stop is not correct;

line 72-73: probably there is an extra space in the word “renew a-ble”