The Role of Low-Cost Digital Solutions in Supporting Industrial Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewers raised the following questions, and the authors are invited to carefully consider.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We are grateful for your work to consider and evaluate our manuscript and for the excellent suggestions provided. 

We hope we have met all the required/expected modifications. Attached are your original review comments in Bold with our responses shown below each comment, with changes to the text in the paper shown in italics. Changes to the manuscript have been tracked and are shown in the new submission pdf. Please let us know if we have not addressed your comments satisfactorily or if you have further concerns.

 

Best regards,

 

Dr Sam Brooks (Corresponding Author)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper appears to address a significant gap in the research by focusing on low-cost digital solutions for sustainability in manufacturing, with a particular emphasis on SMEs.
The provided citations indicate that the authors have engaged with existing research and are contributing to ongoing discussions in the field.
While the research questions are clearly stated, the hypotheses are not explicitly mentioned in the provided content. In addition to this, the quality of some figures must be improved.

The main question the research asks is about how cheap digital tools can help make factories more sustainable, especially for small and medium businesses. This study aims to find and choose digital tools that can make small factory businesses better at using energy wisely. It mainly looks at how they use resources, like for example being more organized in their work processes.

The topic of low-cost digital solutions for sustainability in SME manufacturing is both original and relevant in the field for several reasons:

 1. SME Focus: Study that only aims at the needs and limits of small businesses is very important. This is because they usually don't have as many resources as big companies to spend on costly digital changes.

2.Sustainability: As we focus more on being eco-friendly worldwide, studies that help businesses - especially small ones improve their green practices are very important.

 3.Lean Manufacturing: Putting lean ideas with computer tools together is a new method. It can help make manufacturing processes more efficient and waste less things.

 4.  Industry 4.0: As the making business shifts to Industry 4.0, it's very important that small and medium-sized businesses have digital tools they can use.

 5. Practical Impact: It looks like the study has an important practical part, with workshops led by company workers. This implies it deals with real-life uses in everyday life too.

6. Gap in Literature: The focus on cheap solutions might fill a gap in the writing. It often talks more about expensive technologies that are too costly for many small businesses to use.

 7.  Policy and Economic Implications: The results could be very important for laws and money matters. They might encourage people to help small businesses more on their journeys of turning digital.

 

In short, this subject is important now and could give good ideas to sustainable making things using new methods for small businesses.

Does it address a specific gap in the field?

Yes, the study looks at a certain problem in this area by concentrating on cheaper digital options for long-term sustainability in small to medium businesses manufacturing. Past research has mostly focused on finding and lessening trash in manufacturing. It mainly looks at checking or watching solutions like tracking processes, looking at energy use, and evaluating quality. But, there's a need for cheap ways to help with aspects like managing stock and planning as well as reporting on sustainability and control of quality. These topics have not been written about much so far in books or papers.

The Digital Shoestring Approach (DSA) was suggested to help small businesses grow their digital skills using low-cost technology. It tackled the need for affordable change in this field by making it easier and cheaper. This study goes further by making a list of digital options just for small and medium size manufacturers. It aims to help sustainability using lean manufacturing ideas. This way helps a lot by giving small businesses an affordable and useful list of digital tools they can use to become more sustainable.

The study adds to the subject area of low-cost digital solutions for sustainability in SME manufacturing by:

1. Prioritization of Solutions: It does more than just making a list of possible digital solutions. Instead, it brings people from the industry together in a workshop to decide which ones matter most. This leads to picking our top ten choices that are directly focused on what small businesses need and prefer.
2. Methodological Framework: The paper explains a certain way to find and choose digital fixes that can be used again in other situations. This includes making a small list of solutions, doing workshops for ranking them first.
3. Lean Manufacturing Emphasis: The study looks at how computer solutions can change lean manufacturing ideas. This helps small and medium-sized businesses get better efficiency by being more careful with waste.
4. Gap Identification: The study finds that current digital tools are not being used much, especially for making work better. It suggests new solutions should solve this problem too.
5. Circular Manufacturing Strategies: The study talks about circular making ways as a method for small businesses to cut down waste and help in keeping things green. This idea is still new when talking about low-cost digital answers.
6. Collaboration and Communication: It stresses the importance of future digital plans to improve teamwork and talking between partners. This is vital for helping sustainability in a unified factory world with connections.
7. Evidence-Driven Impact: The article says that cost-effective and proven effects are important. It suggests digital solutions at low prices could give measurable benefits for small businesses, helping the environment in a big way.
8. Resource Compilation: The list of references and citations, along with IDEF0 drawings for different digital solutions gives helpful information. This is good news for people who want to use these technologies in real life or do research on them.

Overall, the study contributes a useful and work-related perspective to the literature on digital transformation for sustainability in small manufacturing businesses. Its particular emphasis lies in low-cost methods that can be simplified and exploited with minimal waste.

 

The authors could consider the following improvements regarding the methodology:

1. Broader Participant Representation: 17 workers from small manufacturers went to the workshop. But if more people join in, we could get a bigger picture of what's important for different SMEs without limits.
2. Longitudinal Studies: Doing long-term studies to check how well the chosen digital tools work over time will give important info on their effects on sustainability and making things in a lean way.
3. Quantitative Analysis: Using numbers with qualitative sorting can make the results more accurate. This might use math techniques to study what the digital solutions cost and how much money they save.
4. Controlled Experiments: Running experiments with limited changes to compare how well different digital tools work in the same manufacturing places might give clearer results about which one is better.
5. Feedback Loops: Creating a loop that keeps the digital solution list updated with new ideas and tech improvements makes sure it stays useful.
6. Carbon Emission Consideration: Since carbon footprint reduction is becoming more important, the writers should think about including thoughts on cutting down emissions in their methods. Even if it's not seen as so crucial by the people at a workshop before, adding this still makes sense for them now.
7. Case Studies: Making detailed stories of small businesses that have successfully used the suggested online tools could give helpful tips for other little companies to try.
8. Cross-Industry Validation: Using the approach in various manufacturing industries can check if it works anywhere and find what special digital solutions each field needs.

By dealing with these points, the writers could make their research method stronger and more useful.

 

The authors should take into account the following controls to strengthen the methodology's robustness and solve any potential shortcomings, even though some of these issues have already been discussed:

1. Diverse Industry Representation: Making sure that small businesses from different manufacturing areas are part of this would give a better look at what digital solutions they need and how important it is.
2. Sample Size and Selection Bias: Making the number of people in a study bigger and using chance methods could lessen unfair choices. This helps make results more relatable to everyone.
3. Comparative Analysis: We can make a comparison with other cheap digital ways or old methods to see which ones are better. This might help us understand the good parts and bad parts of suggested solutions more clearly.
4. Validation of Results: Checking the results by testing out important digital solutions in real-world small business settings can give proof that they work well.
5. Integration of Environmental Controls: Adding special rules about pollution, like checking carbon levels, could make sure that the sustainability part of the solutions is not forgotten.
6. Economic Analysis Controls: Using things like cost-benefit studies and return on investment, adding economic checks can give a better understanding of how going digital might affect your money.

If the authors apply these rules, they can make their research plan stronger. This will give better proof that these cheap digital tools help to improve sustainability in small manufacturing businesses.

 

The study's findings seem to match with the proof and points made in it. The results answer a key question on how cheap digital tools can help sustainability for small businesses that make things, or SMEs, into manufacturing practices. The study method had a workshop with small business workers to choose areas for digital solutions. Then, these were checked against lean manufacturing ideas. This method made sure the answers found were important for people involved and had a chance to deal with certain waste parts in everyday operations.

The study showed that most of the area chosen for sustainability was products to track things. It tells us people need cheap ways help with stuff like stock, planning times and reporting on good behavior too. This fits with the first aim of finding computer answers that could improve sustainability in small business making.

The study admits that low-cost technology has helped small businesses use Industry 4.0 technologies, but more attention is given to tracking and gathering data than using it in wider manufacturing settings. This study helps with this problem by finding digital ways to help manufacturers cut down on waste and be more sustainable. It could also lead them towards bigger ideas of making things last longer in the future if they want to do that too.

In general, the findings in this study are supported by what it shows. This includes ranking online solutions by people involved with different things and looking at how good or bad they are but not all used like usual digital options were found to be missing. The results answer the big question by giving a list of digital tools that can help make SME factories green using lean manufacturing rules. These are organized in order of importance.

 

The information given is good for the study's purpose, which is finding and deciding on cheap digital ways to help keep things green in small factory businesses. The references and resources include:

• A list of solutions that already work, with links to cheap digital tools. This helps the study focus on useful and practical technology you can use right now.
• Looking at Shoestring solutions and their related categories. This is very important to know how these answers can help not wasting resources.
• IDEF0 drawings of different digital choices, which give clear information about specific options and how they might affect sustainability.
• A simple table that shows the first cheap digital areas needed for making things last longer. This is very important to know what our study will cover.
• The top ten solution areas chosen by participants in a workshop about sustainability, who either picked it as their priority or showed interest for long-lasting use. This is the main proof that supports what was found in this study.
• A check on the top ten main answers, which looks more deeply at how these answers can help with making things last longer in small businesses that make stuff.
• A mention of making the first list of cheap digital tools and changing it for study. This gives a starting point to how we will do our research work.
• A part that shows how to use the tools and methods in a study done by UK people in 2023. This puts what they learned into practice out there where it really happens.

In general, the sources are good for what the study needs. They give a strong base to do research and a plan for making conclusions.

 

The tables and figures included in the study provide essential data and visual aids to support the research findings:

• Table 1 sorts out the different areas of digital solutions and their importance to various kinds of waste. This is vital for knowing how each method can help with sustainability goals. But it would be good if the table had a short explanation or examples of each digital solution area to help readers know how they work in real life.
• Table 2 shows how often each category was picked by the people in the survey. It's a simple way to show what they thought was most important. It would be better if the table had percentages or ratios to show clearly how important each group is compared to others.
• Table 4 gives a look at digital solutions compared to lean manufacturing rules. This table is very helpful because it directly connects the answers to possible improvements in making things. It could be improved by adding a place for comments or notes that would give more information about the score.
• Figure 1 shows the IDEF0 diagram that's used for sustainability in small businesses, as explained in this paper. This number is very important for understanding how the research process works. But, the picture could be made better by raising its resolution or size so it's easier to read. This is important if there are tiny letters or lots of details in it.
• Figure 2 is called the IDEF0 model chart, which is normal way to show how functions and processes work. It's not directly shown here but it is thought to give a structure for the method used in the research. Making sure that these numbers are easy to see and fit well in the talk can help people get how things work.

Overall, the figures and tables complement the paper's content and are appropriate. To increase the reader's understanding and the usefulness of the work, they could be further enhanced with more specific information and more explicit visual aids.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We are grateful for your work to consider and evaluate our manuscript and for the excellent suggestions provided. We would also like to thank you for your kind comments and excellent suggestions for future research. The comments were also very thorough, and we appreciate that it must have taken a long time to write. This is a growing area of research, and we would encourage anyone interested in working with us to contact our team or look out for the Low-cost digital solutions workshop we hope to hold later this year.

 

We hope we have met all the required/expected modifications. Attached are your original review comments in Bold, with our responses shown below each comment, with changes to the text in the paper shown in italics. Changes to the manuscript have been tracked and are shown in the new submission pdf. Please let us know if we have not addressed your comments satisfactorily or if you have further concerns.

 

Best regards,

 

Dr Sam Brooks (Corresponding Author)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The authors provide a relevant exploration of low-cost digital technology, specifically within the context of lean manufacturing, offering valuable insights for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) aiming to transition into Industry 4.0. With the focus on identifying which digital solutions areas should be prioritized, the authors implement the structure with understandable diagrams, which makes it an accessible and practical guide for SMEs.

2. For table 4, there shows no evaluation between "energy use monitoring" and other digital solutions. It is suggested that author provide a reason for it.

3. Fig 8 needs more elaboration to clarify the addition of "Dashboard" and "Raspberry Pi" 

4. For Fig 1 it is suggested the author use appropriately stronger color contrast in that clarity of information deem important.

5. As indicated in 4.1, the authors exclude 8 solutions from the catalogue by claiming that those would not directly help reduce resource wastes. Nonetheless, one of the excluded "cost variance tracking" solution, in reviewer's opinion, does help resource wastes. More elaboration is suggested to support the authors' claim.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We are grateful for your work to consider and evaluate our manuscript and for the excellent suggestions provided. We hope we have met all the required/expected modifications. Below are your original review comments in Bold. Our responses are shown below each comment, with changes to the text in the paper shown in italics. Changes to the manuscript have been tracked and are shown in the new submission pdf. Please let us know if we have not addressed your comments satisfactorily or if you have further concerns.

 

Best regards,

 

Dr Sam Brooks (Corresponding Author)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The many issues raised by the reviewers during the first review process have not been revised to a certain depth by the authors, and there are still some shortcomings in the scientific and innovative nature of the manuscript. The content of the author's research and analysis has not been well expressed.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for reading the new version of the paper and providing further feedback. We really appreciate the time you have taken to review our work.  Please find below your original comments (in bold), with responses detailed under each comment. Where relevant, changes made to the manuscript are in italics under each of the comments.

Thank you again,

Best regards

Dr Sam Brooks (Corresponding Author)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved to a certain extent after revision, but there is still room for improvement in the scientific and innovative nature of the research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for reading the new version of the paper and providing further feedback. We appreciate the time you have taken to review our work. The original comment is shown below in bold, along with our response below. Where relevant, changes made to the manuscript are in italics under each of the comments.

Thank you again,

 

Best regards

 

Dr Sam Brooks (Corresponding Author)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf