Development of a Classification Model for Value-Added and Non-Value-Added Operations in Retail Logistics: Insights from a Supermarket Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to review this interesting paper ”Development of a Classification Model for Value-Added and Non-Value-Added Operations in Retail Logistics: Insights from a Supermarket Case Study”

Following are my concerns regarding the paper. The incorporation of these comments can enhance its quality.

 

-       The abstract outlines the study’s objectives but could benefit from concise definitions of “value-added” and “non-value-added” activities, along with brief examples to enhance clarity. Terms like “value-added” and “non-value-added” are used frequently, which may impact readability.

-       The references are limited, with only 18 studies cited, and several sources on Lean concepts are relatively outdated, dating between 1988 and 2004, with the most recent from 2022. Adding newer studies would provide updated perspectives and better alignment with current trends.

-       While the review describes traditional wastes in Lean Manufacturing, it does not fully explain their relevance to retail logistics. Expanding on how specific types of waste impact retail operations could strengthen this section.

-       The methodology section lacks detail on sample size, task observation criteria, and other essential information. Additional specifics on data collection duration, observation frequency, and the classification of tasks as either value-adding or wasteful would improve the study’s reproducibility. Incorporating a process flow diagram could help clarify the internal logistics stages (e.g., receiving, storing, replenishment) by presenting them visually.

-       The case study introduces a new “value” concept based on moving products “closer to the customer at the right price and location.” However, this definition might benefit from more quantitative metrics or validation based on customer feedback. Additionally, the multi-moment analysis could be strengthened by including statistical details, such as error margins, sample distribution, or time-based variations.

-       The results section highlights the percentage of time spent on value-added versus non-value-added tasks, yet it does not fully discuss the implications of these findings for other supermarkets or retail contexts. Since the study focuses on a single supermarket in northern Portugal, it would be helpful for the authors to address the reasoning behind its representativeness. If unique commercial conditions in northern Portugal influence the results, these should be elaborated upon. Further discussion of limitations related to generalizability, such as differences in store size, layout, or customer flow, could enhance the study’s credibility.

-       The conclusion claims that the study provides a “structured framework” and “concrete guidelines” for retail logistics, but this would be more convincing with examples of how the proposed classification can be applied in other contexts. Adding future research directions or potential areas for refining the classification model would also enhance the study’s contribution.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors identified six types of non-value-added activities and applied them to a specific supermarket to classify each identified task, as well as to measure the level of manpower utilisation in value-added tasks using multi-moment analysis. The proposed classification model, on the one hand, contributes to the academic discussion and, on the other hand, serves as a practical tool for retail companies to help them improve their internal logistical dynamics. In their paper, the authors move progressively from general issues to specific issues in each chapter. The article is logically coherent, the proposed case study is relevant to the previous content. The different sections of the work are written in a clear and lucid manner that is of interest to the reader. There is too little from the content of the monograph to suggest that it is supported by a rich study of the literature on the subject. I therefore suggest that the literature on the subject be expanded. Nonetheless, it is a valuable article, and I therefore suggest publication after a minor revision to enlarge the literature on the subject.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your diligent efforts in addressing all the recommendations and suggestions provided during the review process. The revisions have significantly enhanced the quality and clarity of the paper, reflecting a thorough and thoughtful approach to the feedback received.

Given the substantial improvements, I am pleased to recommend the paper for publication. I appreciate your commitment to academic rigor and contribution to the field.