Review Reports - Research on the Relationship Between Lean Management and Digital Transformation Strategy and Sustainable Development: A Case Study of the Automotive Industry in Taiwan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The first sentence of the abstract "Most enterprises have incorporated Sustainable Development (SD) as an option in their strategic planning." indicates a potential problem in the formulation. SD is not an option, it is often an intention, and most often strategic direction. The above sentence should be reformulated.

2. In the abstract, it is necessary to specify the key results of the research.

3. Section "1.1. Research Background" begins with a reference. This is not a common practice and there needs to be some previous text, at least one sentence, as a general introduction.

4. Section "2. Literature Review" contains only one subsection, namely "2.1. Sustainable Development". According to the title, the three key research variables are Lean Management, Digital Transformation and Sustainable Development. It is logical to introduce the sections Digital Transformation and Lean Management into the literature review. In this context, it is especially necessary to improve the literature related to digital transformation and include references such as:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-04-2024-0170
https://doi.org/10.3390/app14114827
https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-07-2024-0408

5. At the beginning of the "Empirical Research" section, data sources are listed, as follows "A total of 24 respondents participated in the first-stage questionnaire, all holding at least a director or section chief position, with 17 of them having more than 20 years of work experience. For the subsequent second and third stages, 10 experts will be selected from these 17 highly experienced respondents to complete the following questionnaires." The research was conducted in the automotive industry. How many automotive companies are there in Taiwan? How were the respondents selected? What is the relationship between the respondent and the company? How is representativeness of the sample ensured? This part of the manuscript requires more attention and further clarification to strengthen confidence in the methodology and results.

6. Section "4.7. Comparison with Previous Studies" essentially does not contain text that connects the results of the study with previous studies. This section needs to be revised to include effective references.

7. The limitations presented in the section "5.2. Limitations and Future Scope of Research" start from serial number 5. Are the previous 4 missing or is there a mistake in the numbering? Certainly, a correction is needed that does not create a dilemma.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a well-structured study on the interrelationships among Lean Management (LM), Digital Transformation (DT), and Sustainable Development (SD) within the Taiwanese automotive industry. The use of integrated QFD-based HoQ frameworks combined with fuzzy MADM methods is appropriate and contributes to the field. The empirical focus on a high-impact industry adds practical relevance. However, several aspects require clarification and improvement to enhance the rigor and impact of the research.

Theoretical Contribution and Novelty:
While the study claims to be the first to hierarchically classify LM practices (JIT and Jidoka), this claim should be more clearly substantiated with references to prior literature. A deeper discussion on how this hierarchical approach differs from existing LM frameworks would strengthen the theoretical contribution.
Methodology:
- The description of the Fuzzy Delphi and FEAHP processes is thorough, but the justification for threshold values (e.g., Gt>8.25 for SD indicators) is lacking. Please explain how these thresholds were determined.
- The sample size (24 for FDM, 10 for later stages) is relatively small. While common in expert-based studies, a justification or limitation note regarding generalizability is needed.
Data Analysis and Interpretation:
- The results of the VIKOR analysis are presented, but the practical implications of the rankings (e.g., why Andon is ranked first) are not sufficiently discussed.
- The correlation matrices (e.g., Table 9) are complex and would benefit from more interpretation or visual aids to improve readability.
Comparative Analysis:
The study would benefit from a comparative discussion with existing literature on LM-DT-SD integration. How do these findings align or contrast with previous studies? This would help position the research within the broader academic conversation.
Clarity and Presentation:
- Some sections (e.g., Section 3.2 on FDM) are overly technical and may be difficult to follow. Simplifying the explanation or adding a summary of steps would improve accessibility.
- Figures 7 and 8 are referenced but not included in the provided text. Please ensure all figures are included and clearly explained

Major revisions required. The paper has a strong foundation but needs better contextualization, clearer methodological justifications, and deeper discussion of results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is interesting and well written. It addresses a topic that is both relevant and necessary. However, to strengthen the manuscript, the authors should consider several major and minor revisions.

My main concerns are as follows:

The rationale for examining the relationship among SD, LM, and DT needs to be more clearly justified in the context of the research problem.
Although the methodological pathway taken is sound, a multivariate empirical analysis might be more suitable given the apparent availability of data. The authors should better explain why this particular methodological approach was chosen over other possible alternatives.
The results should be discussed in a broader, international context, with more explicit comparison to existing literature.

Specific Recommendations

Page 1, line 32: Do not begin with a subsection. Start with a general introduction that presents the research background.
Page 1, line 37: GHG should be defined at first mention.
Page 2, line 60: The subsection heading is unnecessary.
Page 2, lines 64–66: Provide additional references to support this statement.
Page 2, lines 68–69: The text refers only to Taiwan’s industries. Is the study not applicable to other industries? Please elaborate on how this statement could be extended to other sectors worldwide and provide supporting references.
Page 2, lines 80–81: Verify whether this assertion is still valid in light of more recent literature. If not, consider moderating the claim, since it relies on a dated reference.
Page 2, lines 81–84: This represents one of the paper’s central issues. The relationship between SD and LM is well established, as is the relationship between LM and DT. Thus, why does the study not focus primarily on the SD–DT relationship, which appears to be the true missing link? The authors should explain why the more complex SD–LM–DT framework was chosen, and evaluate whether this adds sufficient value to justify the added complexity.
Page 2, line 87: Use “section” instead of “chapter.”
Page 2, lines 87–89: The nature of Section 3 should be briefly introduced in the Introduction. The concepts of QFD and HoQ are introduced abruptly and should be linked to LM earlier in the text.
Page 3, line 97: Replace “chapter” with “section.”
Page 7, Research Method A: The authors do not explicitly compare their chosen methods with alternative approaches. For instance, why was FDM selected instead of classical Delphi or Delphi-AHP? Why FEAHP instead of fuzzy TOPSIS, DEMATEL, or ANP? Why VIKOR instead of TOPSIS, PROMETHEE, or ELECTRE? Why use HoQ rather than an integrated MCDM framework such as BWM + TOPSIS? The justification currently provided (“these methods are widely used”) is not sufficiently critical or comparative.
Page 7, Research Method B: The combination of methods is logically coherent: FDM filters criteria, FEAHP addresses uncertainty in weighting, HoQ structures relationships, and VIKOR ranks alternatives when trade-offs exist. However, the authors do not strongly argue why this exact combination is the most appropriate. Other researchers might have chosen DEMATEL to map relationships, TOPSIS to rank, or BWM instead of FEAHP. The manuscript should provide a more robust justification for this specific toolkit.
Page 26, Figure 8: Provide a higher-quality image.

General comments across the paper:

Some intermediate tables (e.g., showing all fuzzy numbers or linguistic scales) are overwhelming and could be moved to an appendix.
Long lists of indicators and methods could be summarized in the main text (e.g., top 5 items), with the full lists provided in supplementary material.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the improvement of the paper entitled Research on the Relationship Between Lean Management and Digital Transformation Strategy and Sustainable Development: A Case Study of the Automotive Industry in Taiwan.

The aim is to propose a systematic framework among Sustainable Development, Lean Manufacturing, and Digital Transformation using the House of Quality from Quality Function Deployment.

The subject is relevant, and the authors did a good job.

Abstract. I invite the authors to present the aim of the study "...The purpose of this study is to establish...", before "This study focuses on the...", to create a better rational reading flow, but it is not mandatory, just a suggestion.

1.Introduction 31
1.1. Research Background. l. 45. Please inform the meaning of the acronym (SD) at its first citation in the text.

2. Literature Review. Table 1 and 2. Please inform reference No. 12 in the comment.

3. Research Method. Fig. 3. Multiplication: Ã×B̃ = (𝑎1+𝑎2, 𝑏1+𝑏2, 𝑐1+𝑐2), Please correct the signals between the parenthesis.

4. Empirical Research. Well done.

5. Conclusions.

5.2. Limitations and Future Scope of Research. Please correct the numbering of the following aspects.

l. 677 - Please inform the meaning of the acronym FANP (or misspelling of FAHP?).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have well addressed all suggestions for revising the paper. In the section "4.7. Comparison with Previous Studies" they added a new portion of the text to improve it and it was done very well, but there is still no effective referencing in this section. It is recommended to add references in brackets in this part of the text, which were previously cited in the section related to the literature review.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the authors for revising and responding to the first round of review comments. Overall, the authors have made significant efforts in several areas, particularly in clarifying the hierarchical classification, interpreting the VIKOR results, and enhancing comparisons with existing research. However, some key issues remain unresolved and require further revisions to improve the rigor and readability of the paper. Specific points are as follows:
1. Theoretical Contributions and Novelty
In Section 2.2, the authors added a hierarchical classification of LM methods, emphasizing the novelty of JIT and Jidoka as "stages or goals" rather than single methods. However, direct comparisons with the classic LM framework or recent research are still lacking, failing to fully highlight the theoretical breakthroughs of this study. We suggest that the authors include comparisons with representative literature in the literature review or discussion section, and explain how this hierarchical structure addresses the shortcomings of existing research.
2. Methodology
Regarding the determination of the threshold, the authors claimed in their response that the Methods section already includes relevant details on the threshold, but the manuscript does not clearly explain the rationale for selecting the threshold. We suggest that the authors provide additional justification for setting the threshold, such as based on literature consensus, pre-experimental results, or expert advice, and cite relevant methodological references. 3. Clarity and Presentation
I believe the description of FDM is sufficiently clear and not oversimplified. I suggest that the author add a summary of the steps at the beginning of Section 3.2 to help non-specialist readers understand the core process and avoid excessive technical details. Furthermore, the authors claim to have ensured the completeness and interpretation of Figures 7 and 8, but these figures are not provided in the manuscript. When submitting the final version, please ensure that all figures are embedded in the text, accompanied by detailed illustrations, and properly referenced in the text.
Overall, the current manuscript meets the requirements of several items, but further revisions are required to address the above-mentioned issues. I suggest that the author provide a point-by-point response to the revisions and reflect these adjustments in the final manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for providing answers to most of my comments. However, I still believe that some important issues have not been sufficiently addressed by the authors. I recommend that the following comments be reconsidered.

Major Concerns

Comment 4:
Page 2, lines 64–66: Please provide additional references to support this statement.

Authors’ response: They indicated that they would not do so because the word of one of the authors is sufficient.

My response: I do not consider the reputation of an author sufficient to support a claim in a scientific publication. This response is unusual and unacademic. If the authors are confident in their assertions to the extent of treating them as factual, they must provide appropriate references from the literature to substantiate their statements.

Comment 11:
Page 7, Research Method A: The authors do not explicitly compare their chosen methods with alternative approaches. For instance, why was FDM selected instead of the classical Delphi or Delphi–AHP? Why FEAHP instead of fuzzy TOPSIS, DEMATEL, or ANP? Why VIKOR instead of TOPSIS, PROMETHEE, or ELECTRE? Why use HoQ rather than an integrated MCDM framework such as BWM + TOPSIS? The justification currently provided (“these methods are widely used”) is not sufficiently critical or comparative.

Authors’ response: The authors provided a justification for this issue.

My response: I agree with their reasoning; however, it is important that this justification be clearly presented in the manuscript and supported by relevant literature.

Minor Concerns

Comment 3:
Page 2, line 60: The subsection heading appears unnecessary.

Authors’ response: We will keep it.

My response: That is acceptable; however, such a structure is uncommon in scientific publications.