Advancing UX Practices in Industrial Machine Design: A Case Study from the Swiss Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted manuscript presents an interesting and timely topic—investigating user experience (UX) maturity in industrial product design, with a specific focus on mechanical design. Given the ongoing advancement of Industry 4.0 technologies, including the Internet of Things (IoT) and smart human–machine interaction, this topic has practical relevance for enhancing the intelligence and competitiveness of industrial equipment.

While the current version of the manuscript demonstrates a clear research aim and outlines a complete methodology for examining the status quo among Swiss mechanical manufacturers, several key aspects still require further development before the research can be considered sufficiently rigorous. I offer the following major suggestions for improvement:

1）The structure of the manuscript could be improved. The Introduction section should be more concise and clearly articulate the core research objectives and the gaps this study intends to address. A more comprehensive and critical literature review would further strengthen the manuscript by justifying the relevance and robustness of the applied methodology. Additionally, the Discussion section should be expanded beyond a single subsection on limitations and future work. It should also include subsections on the theoretical contributions, methodological insights, and practical implications for related industrial fields, thereby presenting a well-rounded discussion of the findings.

2）The authors are encouraged to provide a more in-depth explanation of why software maturity is considered a primary indicator of UX maturity. In many mechanical manufacturing firms, the software department plays a pivotal role in delivering value-added services through embedded operating systems that enable automation and smart communication with users. However, it remains unclear to what extent user preferences are taken into account in software development, especially considering that user involvement is not always a prerequisite in such processes.

3）The manuscript would greatly benefit from more direct empirical evidence to substantiate the assessment of UX maturity. Specifically, the authors should consider comparing product functions or features across the three selected companies to illustrate how user feedback has been integrated into the design or refinement of mechanical products. Alternatively, the authors should clarify the criteria used to judge a machine product as having a "very good" level of UX maturity. Subjective but detailed quantitative indicators—derived from product features—could play a more significant role in validating the proposed research framework.

4）A minor methodological issue concerns the use of the Likert scale. Typically, Likert scales are constructed with an odd number of points (e.g., 5-point or 7-point scales), allowing for a neutral midpoint. The use of a 4-point scale should be justified more clearly.

5）The manuscript currently lacks a clear and consistent definition of "user experience maturity." A precise and operational definition is crucial to ensure coherence throughout the study and to facilitate replicability in future research.

6）Finally, the rationale for selecting the three exemplar companies should be better articulated. The criteria for choosing these firms over others should be clearly explained to establish the generalizability and relevance of the study's findings.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Despite the industry's acknowledged need for UX principles in I4.0 and their proven advantages in software development, the Swiss Machinery Industry (SMI) finds it challenging to put these methods into effect. This study offers a thorough examination of the connection between SMI and UX approaches using both quantitative and qualitative research techniques based on action research. Particular obstacles to the successful integration and uptake of UX techniques were found through an analysis of the organizational structure and product development dynamics of three partner organizations.  Following that, methods for overcoming them were determined and verified by field testing with professionals from two different companies. Last but not least, the tactics used have been modified into 28 more general suggestions for action directed at machine manufacturers.  In total, paper examines important, unsufficiently  surveyed topic and it is well structured and written. My recommendations for improvement are as follows:

• line 138 give mean value and standard deviation for number of employees, together with min and max
• line 146 - give more details about online survey
• line 155 - give the questionnaire at the end of paper as appendix
• line 170-173 - give exact facts about claimed calculation 
• in section discussion add part where you compare also three examined companies

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper deals with the advancement of the machine design methods using the user experience methods integration.

The issue treated is relevant especially looking to the extension towards the I5.0. The context and the results are well explained and clear; not the same can be said for the methodology.

Minor concerns:

• page 2 lines 68-69, the affirmation here reported has to referenced and better justified.
• page 3 line101, why the swiss machines producers are different from the others, please justify the affirmation and justify this affirmation.

Major concern:

• page 4 line 146, it is reported the fact that the step 1 is realised through a survey. What kind of survey method is used? The methodology has to be integrated to better identify the method used, please make clearer the reference method.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe the revised manuscript demonstrates a more structured presentation and greater clarity. However, the authors are still encouraged to clearly articulate their contributions in comparison with existing similar studies. Additionally, the metrics employed in this study would benefit from more scientifically robust references to better support their validity and effectiveness.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx