A Data-Driven Lean Manufacturing Framework for Enhancing Productivity in Textile Micro-Enterprises^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is interesting but it needs to be improved.

• Introduction and Literature Review seems to me ok;

 

• 1 until fig. 6 must be cited and explained in the text;

 

• Methodology is very long;

 

• Chart 1 can be fig. 7

 

• 11 line 434 fig.19 is missing

 

• Chart 2 can be fig. 8

 

• Conclusion is very long

 

• All Appendix are after References

 

• 1. Limitations of the study must be independent of Conclusion

 

• 2. Recommendations for future research must be independent of Conclusion

 

• In References, please translate “Extraido de” for “Retrieved from…”.

 

• In references put page number in all of them.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The Quality of English Language is good but can be improved.

Author Response

REVIEW REPORT 1 – Reviewer 1

• - Figures up to Fig. 6 must be cited and explained in the text: All figures from Figure 1 to Figure 6 have now been explicitly cited and discussed in the main text.
• - The Methodology section is too long: The Methodology has been revised and streamlined to enhance readability and eliminate redundancies.
• - Graph 1 can be renamed as Fig. 7 / Graph 2 as Fig. 8: Both graphs have been renamed accordingly.
• - Line 434 is missing Fig. 19: The text has been corrected.
• - Conclusion is too long: The Conclusion section has been divided into Conclusion, Limitations, and Future Recommendations.
• - Study limitations and future recommendations should be separate from the conclusion: These are now in dedicated sections.
• - Translate ‘Extraído de’ to ‘Retrieved from’ in references: All instances corrected.
• - Include page numbers in references where applicable: Page numbers added.
• - English language quality is good but can be improved: The manuscript was reviewed and improved for clarity and grammar.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents a very nice implementation of well-established methods. The method of 5s and the technique of TPM.

The authors claim to build a new "model" for increasing productivity. This, unfortunately, is not backed up by the article. The article presents (again, very nicely and elaborately) a case of implementing well-researched techniques, the novelty of the "model" and its contribution is unclear.

The author had better insert a section where they describe the synergy of the techniques and the changes (if any) inserted into them, otherwise the reader is left with the impression of (yet another) successful implementation.

The analysis also leaves the reader puzzled - true, the implementation was successful and contributed. But, can one deduce from a single case that the 'model' actually contributes more than implementation of the (well-known) methods?

lighter issues:

There is some redundancy in the article. The concept of 5s is explained no less than 3 times. For some reason, in the 3rd explanation, the authors decided to go back to the Japanese terms. I understand that the last one was the implementation part, but the author had better shorten the article, as it is not a manual for 5s.

Author Response

REVIEW REPORT 2 – Reviewer 2

• - The novelty and contribution of the model are unclear: Section 3.1 now highlights the novelty of our framework.
• - Include a section on the synergy of tools and any modifications made: Integrated in the Methodology and Discussion sections.
• - Can a single case validate the superiority of the proposed model?: Addressed through comparative discussion and stated limitations.
• - Redundancy in 5S explanations and inconsistent use of Japanese terms: Content consolidated, Japanese terms explained once.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article "A Data-Driven Lean Manufacturing Framework for Enhancing Productivity in Textile Micro-Enterprises" addresses the issue of implementing selected Lean Management tools in a textile company.

The significant value of the article is its practical aspect, showing tips for implementing the indicated solutions in similar organizations. The article also cites numerous examples from the literature of the positive effects of implementing solutions related to LM in various companies.

Unfortunately, the article is not free from errors or omissions. I encourage you to consider the following issues in order to increase its value and quality.

It seems to me that the article would be more readable if it used the recommended method of citation for the journal, with the authors' names. For example, line 110: "for which some authors such as [11,12] developed the Lean Manufacturing" - numbers 11 and 12 are not the authors' names, but numbers - a sentence constructed in this way (and there are a lot of them in the work) is illegible.

- line 126 - this sentence probably requires some reconstruction, currently it seems to suggest that the authors mentioned in sources 11 and 12 are the authors of the LM concept, which of course would not be true. This most likely means that they developed a method of adapting LM in their companies
- line 131 - isn't there a missing dot after "of"?
- line 142 - unnecessary dot after "developed"
- what are the sources of the drawings? Even if it is an own source, it should be indicated

Unfortunately, I did not find information in the article about potential or encountered in practice problems related to the implemented tools - it would seem reasonable to present them in the theoretical part, and even more so in the part presenting the practical implementation. Such information, together with the indicated methods of dealing with it, would increase the value of the article.

The content in the "Methodology" chapter seems to duplicate content - for example, the authors presented the 5S tool itself in lines 237-255, and then the scheme of its implementation in lines 287-303. Meanwhile, both descriptions are practically the same. Is it justified to separate subsections 2.4.1-2.4.4? These numbers are also incorrect - they are included in chapter 3, not 2.

- line 351 - "s" should be a capital letter
- line 358 - should this text be there?
- line 434 - where can I find the aforementioned figure 19?
- Table 4 - which meeting does "Presentation of instructions" refer to? It would be worth separating the content of both meetings in some way
- line 472 - shouldn't it be "Chart 2"?

Chapter "Discussion" - what is the reason for the fact that in its first part the authors present the effects of implementation presented in the literature and describe them as "scenario 1/2/3", and then present further examples, but without this division? This division also seems unnecessary - especially since it is difficult to compare directly with the model implemented in the described organization.

Appendix O. b) - is this caption appropriate?

Considering the journal "Sustainability", it would also be worth indicating more broadly what impact the implementation of the described solutions has on sustainability. Especially since such an impact obviously exists. Currently, I found only 2 small references to this fact in the article.

I encourage you to think about the above issues and include them in the revised version of the article.

Author Response

REVIEW REPORT 3 – Reviewer 3

• - Use author names in citations instead of just numbers: All citations updated to author-date format.
• - Stylistic issues (lines 126, 131, 142, etc.): All lines reviewed and corrected.
• - Source of illustrations should be indicated: Sources now included with each figure.
• - No mention of practical problems encountered during implementation: These are now included in the Validation and Discussion sections.
• - Methodology content is repetitive – especially 5S: Redundancies removed and structure improved.
• - Should subsections 2.4.1–2.4.4 be separate?: Reorganized for clarity and coherence.
• - Discussion section – unclear use of scenarios 1/2/3: Rewritten with clearer comparative structure.
• - Sustainability impact should be more clearly discussed: Expanded to highlight environmental and operational benefits.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1 - Appendix must be after references

 

2 - References must be improved:

Instead of : Jiménez, M.; Espinosa, M. D. M.; Domínguez, M.; Romero, M.; Awad, T. Adaptation of the Lean 6S Methodology in an Industrial 716 Environment under Sustainability and Industry 4.0 Criteria. Sustainability (Switzerland) 2021, 13 (22). 717 https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212449. (Page 2)

Must be for all references: Jiménez, M.; Espinosa, M. D. M.; Domínguez, M.; Romero, M.; Awad, T. Adaptation of the Lean 6S Methodology in an Industrial 716 Environment under Sustainability and Industry 4.0 Criteria. Sustainability (Switzerland) 2021, 13 (22), 1- 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212449. 

Author Response

All the comments has been considered in this new version.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am glad that many of the comments I made have been taken into account. Unfortunately, one of the most important ones, which seriously disrupts the readability of the article, has not been taken into account. What is more, in the response, the authors indicated an improvement ("Use author names in citations instead of just numbers: All citations updated to author-date format."),  although in reality this has not happened. In many places, you can still find fragments such as:
"On the other hand, in [27] presents another perspective regarding the improvement of the production process of a company...". Is this presented by "number 27" or by some author?

I again suggest introducing this change - the article is illegible and difficult to read, and I am sure that the authors want its readers to fully understand it...

The article includes descriptions of the figures - this is good, but it is customary for these descriptions to be indicated above the figure, not below it. Please also note the lack of a source for Figure 8.

Regardless of the above, the article is certainly more valuable than in its first version, for which I congratulate the authors.

Author Response

All the comments of the reviewer has been considered.