Enhancing Fire Resilience in High-Tech Electronic Plants for Sustainable Development: Combining System Composition with Organizational Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present interesting and important research results. However, before publishing the material, they should clarify a few issues in the article:

- Was a method other than PLS-SEM used, and if not, why? Explaining that "This method can deal with the small sample size and is suitable for explorative studies." is insufficient.

- The article does not refer to legal aspects that go beyond other possibilities. I draw attention to this in the light of the sentence: "The use of fire-resistant materials in construction and design plays a significant role in this safety net." This is obvious and results from the regulations.

- In some countries, for specific types of buildings, it is required to immediately turn off general ventilation and turn on fire ventilation. These are two different systems. The authors should discuss this regarding the sentence: "Advanced ventilation systems are another key component."

- The article has very weak conclusions. This is, in my opinion, the main issue that needs improvement. In this part, the authors should show why they performed their research and the possibility of applying the results. That is, how a company (the person responsible for fire safety) associated with the high-tech manufacturing sector can apply the conclusions from this article.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewers’ Comments (also attached)

We greatly appreciate the reviewers’ valuable comments. These comments have helped improve the quality of the manuscript. In response to these comments, the authors have revised the manuscript in grey substantially, focusing on reorganizing the paper more logically and clarifying issues and confusion raised by the reviewers. Responses to each of the reviewers’ comments are given in the following:

Comment 1: - Was a method other than PLS-SEM used, and if not, why? Explaining that “This method can deal with the small sample size and is suitable for explorative studies.” is insufficient.

Response:

Thank you for this comment! We highly agree that we did not explain well the suitability of the methods we used. According to your comment, we significantly modified relevant descriptions and explained the reason why we chose PLS-SEM for data analysis in Chapter Method and Data Collection.

[Line 200-209]

4)    Model evaluation and hypotheses testing: Structural equation modeling (SEM) has been extensively employed in theoretical explorations and empirical validations in various research areas [46]. As an alternative to the classical covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM), partial least squares SEM (PLS-SEM) is a recently widely used method that maximizes the explained variance of the dependent latent constructs instead of constructing a theoretical covariance matrix [47]. PLS-SEM can estimate complex relationships and emphasize prediction without imposing high demands on data or requiring a specification of relationships. Therefore, PLS-SEM was employed in this study to validate the research model and test the proposed hypotheses [48–50].

Comment 2: - The article does not refer to legal aspects that go beyond other possibilities. I draw attention to this in the light of the sentence: “The use of fire-resistant materials in construction and design plays a significant role in this safety net.” This is obvious and results from the regulations.

Response:

Thank you for this constructive comment! Acknowledge that while the use of fire-resistant materials is indeed a standard and widely recognized practice, as mandated by regulations in the construction industry, the paper aims to delve into the specific challenges and requirements of high-tech plants. Therefore, we modified this paragraph and emphasized the silicon slicing process as an example of a specialized scenario. In such a specialized scenario, the choice of fire-resistant materials needs to be tailored to the unique risks and processes involved.

[Line 302-311]

The use of fire-resistant materials in construction and design is crucial for safety, par-ticularly in high-tech environments like those involving the silicon-slicing process. In this process, the risk of spontaneous silicon combustion and the complex nature of gas supply systems elevate the potential for fires and explosions. To mitigate these risks, the requirements for fireproof materials in clean rooms are more stringent than for other plant areas. For example, according to Chinese standards, the fire protection zone and evacuation distance of this area far exceed the requirements of GB 50016-2014 Code for Fire Protection Design of Buildings [51]. Additionally, it is crucial to consider the risk of structural damage and instability due to explosions when choosing construction materials. This approach ensures a targeted and safer design for such specialized production facilities.

Comment 3: - In some countries, for specific types of buildings, it is required to immediately turn off general ventilation and turn on fire ventilation. These are two different systems. The authors should discuss this regarding the sentence: “Advanced ventilation systems are another key component.”

Response:

Thank you for this constructive comment! According to your guidance, we defined the advanced ventilation systems. The focus of this study is the fire ventilation system, and we explained how it works with specifications. Meanwhile, we discussed the potential improvement of the current fire ventilation system.

[Line 321-324]

Advanced ventilation systems are another key component, which refers to sophisticated air management systems designed for high-tech environments, such as clean workshops. These systems are tasked with maintaining optimal air quality during normal operations and are crucial in fire safety scenarios. According to GB 50016-2014 Code for Fire Protection Design of Buildings, fire ventilation is not part of a general ventilation system, but is designed with detailed specifications and can be turned on in both manual and automatic ways. Fire supplementary air cannot be extracted directly from the outside, so clean air processed by a fresh air conditioning unit is used as fire supplementary air. An electric valve is installed on the branch air duct, which is normally closed and automatically opened for fire protection. However, in practice, the opening mechanism of the electric valve still needs to be optimized. The current trigger opening state will only be automatically executed when a large fire occurs. But in reality, we need to turn it on earlier, requiring more sophisticated sensors and intelligent triggering algorithms.

Comment 4: - The article has very weak conclusions. This is, in my opinion, the main issue that needs improvement. In this part, the authors should show why they performed their research and the possibility of applying the results. That is, how a company (the person responsible for fire safety) associated with the high-tech manufacturing sector can apply the conclusions from this article.

Response:

Many thanks for this constructive comment! We completely rewrote the chapter Conclusion. First, we indicated the problem and gap. Then, we introduced how we made the conclusion step by step. Subsequently, we explained the findings and practical implications for practitioners. Finally, we proposed future work for us and other researchers.

[Line 364-402]

7. Conclusion

Current research on fire safety in high-tech electronic plants primarily focuses on risk assessment and fire protection design. However, there’s a gap in understanding the system composition and fire protection features specific to specialized production and operation environments. Additionally, the role of organizational management in fire resilience, especially from a sustainability standpoint, remains underexplored. Thus, it’s crucial to integrate system composition and organizational management in studying the system resilience of high-tech electronics plants. Through a literature review, hypothesis development, an industrial survey, and PLS-SEM analysis, this paper systematically explored the critical aspects of fire resilience in high-tech electronics plants through the lens of sustainable development. By examining the interplay of fire protection design measures, construction facilities, and organizational management, we have underscored the importance of integrating eco-friendly and safety-focused practices in these advanced manufacturing environments.

The findings emphasize that enhancing fire resilience in high-tech electronics plants goes beyond mere compliance with safety standards; it necessitates a holistic approach that incorporates three essential aspects: 1) fire protection design measure improvement, 2) sustainable and fireproof construction facility and 3) organizational management support. Sustainable fire protection designs in high-tech electronic plants represent a holistic approach to resilience. They embody a forward-thinking strategy that prioritizes the safety of personnel and the protection of assets while simultaneously upholding a strong commitment to environmental responsibility. Meanwhile, the role of the organizational management system in high-tech electronics plants is multifaceted. It is not just about training personnel for fire emergencies; it’s about fostering a culture of safety, environmental stewardship, and operational excellence. By integrating these aspects, high-tech electronics plants can enhance their resilience, not just in terms of fire safety, but in their overall sustainable operations.

The recommendations provided in this study, based on comprehensive research and analysis, offer actionable insights for industry practitioners, highlighting the potential to not only safeguard against fire-related risks but also to contribute positively to environmental conservation and social well-being. This research fills a significant gap in the current understanding of fire resilience, especially from a system composition perspective, and paves the way for future studies to delve further into the integration of sustainability in high-tech manufacturing sectors. Further studies could focus on the long-term impact of these practices on environmental conservation and social well-being. Additionally, expanding the scope to include different types of high-tech manufacturing sectors could provide a broader understanding of sustainable fire resilience strategies. This direction will not only enhance fire safety but also contribute to the overall sustainability of high-tech manufacturing.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is of interesting and undoubtedly important and up-to date topic. In fact it is a typically research paper that provides results of provided survey. In overall, the paper has been organized in a proper way and both the methodology and analysis of obtained results are correct. In my opinion the paper can be treated as a good research paper and can be published in a Sustainability journal. In fact I have only a few minor remarks/suggestions that can help to improve the paper:

1.       It is not necessary to provide the date of survey in the abstract of the paper.

2.       Lines 93-94 – it is not necessary to use capital letters when write words: ”robustness”, ”redundancy”, ”resourcefulness”, and ”rapidity”.

3.       Although the literature review has been realized properly, you should define the research gap in a clearer way.

4.       Fig. 2 is not clear. Therefore I recommend to redraw it.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer’s Comments（also attached）

We greatly appreciate the reviewers’ valuable comments. These comments have helped improve the quality of the manuscript. In response to these comments, the authors have revised the manuscript in grey substantially, focusing on reorganizing the paper more logically and clarifying issues and confusion raised by the reviewers. Responses to each of the reviewers’ comments are given in the following:

Comment 1: It is not necessary to provide the date of survey in the abstract of the paper.

Response 1:

Thank you for this comment! We modified the abstract and deleted the date of survey.

[Line 11-29]

Abstract: In the realm of sustainable advancements, high-tech electronics plants have evolved concomitantly with the innovations in environmentally-conscious high-tech manufacturing. Nonetheless, the potential for fires in these establishments presents a profound challenge, jeopardizing both human resources and assets, while also bearing ecological implications. However, difficulty exists in understanding the system composition and fire protection features specific to the production environment. Meanwhile, sustainable development-oriented organizational countermeasures for fire resilience are rarely explored in the operation environment. Through a literature review, hypotheses development, an industrial survey, and PLS-SEM analysis using data from 84 questionnaires, this paper aims to fill this gap by analyzing the system composition of high-tech electronics plants and its influence on fire resilience and emphasizing the organizational perspective. This study delves into the fire resilience of high-tech electronics plants, drawing particular attention to the imperative of fire prevention, detection, and mitigation measures. The discourse is framed within the paradigm of design-for-sustainability thinking, underscoring the integration of sustainable practices in enhancing fire resilience. By examining the interplay between various functional and organizational system composition elements, three key aspects are extracted to enhance fire resilience: 1) fire protection design measure improvement, 2) sustainable and fireproof construction facility and 3) organizational management support. The findings contribute to a better understanding of the complex nature of high-tech electronics plants and provide actionable insights for enhancing both fire resilience and sustainable practices in these establishments.

Comment 2: Lines 93-94 – it is not necessary to use capital letters when write words: ”robustness”, ”redundancy”, ”resourcefulness”, and ”rapidity”.

Response 2:

Many thanks for this comment! We modified this statement according to your comment.

[Line 93-95]

The theory encompasses various dimensions, with one notable framework being the robustness, redundancy, resourcefulness, and rapidity (4R) model [15].

Comment 3: Although the literature review has been realized properly, you should define the research gap in a clearer way.

Response 3:

Thank you for this constructive comment! We added a paragraph to explain the research gap at the end of the literature review.

[Line 153-162]

Currently, research on fire safety management in high-tech electronic plants mainly focuses on fire risk assessment and fire protection design [26,33,44,45]. However, insufficient exploration of the system composition of high-tech electronics plants has led to an unclear understanding of the features of fire protection in this specific production situation. At the same time, there is also a lack of research on fire protection organizational management systems from a sustainable perspective, resulting in the importance of organizational management in the formation of fire resilience not being reflected. Therefore, conducting in-depth research on the system resilience of high-tech electronics plants by combining system composition and organizational management is essential.

Comment 4: Fig. 2 is not clear. Therefore I recommend to redraw it.

Response 4:

Thank you for this comment! We redraw this figure according to your comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript explores the fire resilience of high-tech electronics plants, emphasizing the importance of fire prevention, detection, and mitigation measures. The aim is reached doing a  industrial survey, and PLS-SEM analysis using 84 questionnaires collected between April 18, 2023, and June 22, 2023. This publication needs major revisions before proceeding to publication. 

An English extended revision is needed for the manuscript.

Title fits good the scope of the manuscript.

The information of the authors may need an editing revision according to MDPI standards.

The abstract may be redesigned in the light of its connection with methodology and limitations of the study. Moreover, abstract should cover the critical findings of the study at all.

Keywords fits good the scope of the manuscript.

Please make sure that all the text format is following the standard proposed by MDPI guidelines.

Please check all the references among the text. You may can add some more references in the introduction and theory background section.

Reviewer suggests following the MDPI guidelines regarding the text format. All the tables  and figures citations should follow the MDPI style.

In the theory background section you may add more references in line 113- 114 regarding other infrastructures (2023; 6(5):213 ; S1877705816330119 ; 0.47818/DRArch.2023.v4si115).

Reviewers suggest following the text structures of MDPI. You may put in materials and method section the paragraph 3 and paragraph 4.

Lines 168 – 201 you may put all the hypothesis in a table to have a more structured and understandable section.

Line 214 “The pre-test results show that the questionnaire effect is better.” What do you mean? Please explain and make an example of it.

Table 3 what is the total percentage referred to? Please explain.

Paragraph 5 should be called just Results.

Line 255 All the indicators involved in our model are reflective. What means?

Reviewer suggests adding a summary results table to gives readers a chance to have a look on it.

Discussion section is very long. It should contain the main critical findings regarding the manuscript value and includes some limitations.

Conclusion section: authors can add the future work in this section.

An English extended revision is needed for the manuscript.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer’s Comments (also attached)

We greatly appreciate the reviewers’ valuable comments. These comments have helped improve the quality of the manuscript. In response to these comments, the authors have revised the manuscript in grey substantially, focusing on reorganizing the paper more logically and clarifying issues and confusion raised by the reviewers. Responses to each of the reviewers’ comments are given in the following:

Comment 1: The information of the authors may need an editing revision according to MDPI standards.

Response 1: Thank you for this comment! We modified the authors’ information according to MDPI standards.

Comment 2: The abstract may be redesigned in the light of its connection with methodology and limitations of the study. Moreover, abstract should cover the critical findings of the study at all.

Response 2: Many thanks for this constructive comment! According to your guidance, we significantly modified the abstract and explained the gap, methods, findings, and implications of our study.

[Line 11-29]

Abstract: In the realm of sustainable advancements, high-tech electronics plants have evolved concomitantly with the innovations in environmentally-conscious high-tech manufacturing. Nonetheless, the potential for fires in these establishments presents a profound challenge, jeopardizing both human resources and assets, while also bearing ecological implications. However, difficulty exists in understanding the system composition and fire protection features specific to the production environment. Meanwhile, sustainable development-oriented organizational countermeasures for fire resilience are rarely explored in the operation environment. Through a literature review, hypotheses development, an industrial survey, and PLS-SEM analysis using data from 84 questionnaires, this paper aims to fill this gap by analyzing the system composition of high-tech electronics plants and its influence on fire resilience and emphasizing the organizational perspective. This study delves into the fire resilience of high-tech electronics plants, drawing particular attention to the imperative of fire prevention, detection, and mitigation measures. The discourse is framed within the paradigm of design-for-sustainability thinking, underscoring the integration of sustainable practices in enhancing fire resilience. By examining the interplay between various functional and organizational system composition elements, three key aspects are extracted to enhance fire resilience: 1) fire protection design measure improvement, 2) sustainable and fireproof construction facility and 3) organizational management support. The findings contribute to a better understanding of the complex nature of high-tech electronics plants and provide actionable insights for enhancing both fire resilience and sustainable practices in these establishments.

Comment 3: Please make sure that all the text format is following the standard proposed by MDPI guidelines.

Response 3: Thank you for this comment! We applied the template from MDPI guidelines and checked all the text formats.

Comment 4: Please check all the references among the text. You may can add some more references in the introduction and theory background section.

Response 4: Thank you for this comment! We checked all the references and added more references in the Introduction, Theory Background, Method and Data Collection, and Discussion sections.

Comment 5: In the theory background section you may add more references in line 113- 114 regarding other infrastructures (2023; 6(5):213 ; S1877705816330119 ; 0.47818/DRArch.2023.v4si115).

Response 5: Thank you for providing valuable literature, and we added it to the Theory Background section.

[Line 115-116]

Previous research mainly focuses on residential buildings [25,26], subway systems [27,28], bridges [29,30] and forest areas etc [31,32].

Comment 6: Reviewers suggest following the text structures of MDPI. You may put in materials and method section the paragraph 3 and paragraph 4.

Response 6: Thank you for this comment! We modified the Chapters 3 and 4 and followed the MDPI structures. We named the Chapter 4 as Materials and Methods.

Comment 7: Lines 168 – 201 you may put all the hypothesis in a table to have a more structured and understandable section.

Response 7: Thank you for this comment! We arranged all the hypotheses in Tab. 3 Hypotheses Development.

[Line 179-181]

Comment 8: Line 214 “The pre-test results show that the questionnaire effect is better.” What do you mean? Please explain and make an example of it.

Response 8: Many thanks for this comment! We significantly modified the statement of questionnaire development and pre-test process.

[Line 192-197]

2)    Pre-test for questionnaire development: After the first phase of interviews, we adjusted the order of partial questions to make them easier for interviewees to understand. The refined questionnaire underwent a pre-test involving 25 valid samples, aimed at further enhancing its quality. The outcomes of this pre-test indicated that the questionnaire was effectively structured and ready for broader deployment.

Comment 9: Table 3 what is the total percentage referred to? Please explain.

Response 9: Thank you for this comment! We added an explanation for this percentage.

[Line 229-232]

The percentages in the table represent the ratio of the number of respondents in each category to the total number of respondents. Since the first item type allows for multiple selections, the sum of these ratios exceeds 100%.

Comment 10: Paragraph 5 should be called just Results.

Response 10: Thank you for this comment! We modified Chapter 5 and named it Results.

Comment 11: Line 255 All the indicators involved in our model are reflective. What means?

Response 11: Many thanks for this comment! The indicators in the PLS-SEM model have two types: reflective and formative. They have different evaluation criteria. We modeled our indicators as reflective and used the corresponding evaluation criteria.

Comment 12: Reviewer suggests adding a summary results table to gives readers a chance to have a look on it.

Response 12: Thank you for this comment! We added Tab. 8 to show all hypotheses and testing results.

[Line 284-285]

Comment 13: Discussion section is very long. It should contain the main critical findings regarding the manuscript value and includes some limitations.

Response 13: Thank you for this comment! We shortened Chapter Discussion and provided more valuable implications.

[Line 292-363]

Comment 14: Conclusion section: authors can add the future work in this section.

Response 14: Many thanks for this comment! We completely rewrote the Chapter Conclusion and added the future work in the end.

[Line 391-402]

The recommendations provided in this study, based on comprehensive research and analysis, offer actionable insights for industry practitioners, highlighting the potential to not only safeguard against fire-related risks but also to contribute positively to environmental conservation and social well-being. This research fills a significant gap in the current understanding of fire resilience, especially from a system composition perspective, and paves the way for future studies to delve further into the integration of sustainability in high-tech manufacturing sectors. Further studies could focus on the long-term impact of these practices on environmental conservation and social well-being. Additionally, ex-panding the scope to include different types of high-tech manufacturing sectors could provide a broader understanding of sustainable fire resilience strategies. This direction will not only enhance fire safety but also contribute to the overall sustainability of high-tech manufacturing.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The suggestions and revisions have been implemented by the authors.