Release Planning Patterns for the Automotive Domain
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper entitled „Release Planning Patterns For The Automotive Domain” deals with the problem of release planning, embedded in the context of the automotive domain. I found this paper interesting and valuable reading, however there are a few issues which the Authors should consider during the paper revision.
Abstract.
- The following sentence “Objective: The aim of this work is to propose release planning patterns to simplify release planning” should be rewritten, while I found it confusing.
- Please provide a brief summary of the limitations of existing patterns, which will explain (justify) your motivation to develop a new ones.
- Why have you followed a pattern identification process introduced by Dr Ing? One sentence will be enough. Moreover, it is not a research method. I think that you have performed the pilot study, correct me if I am wrong.
- What are the results obtained from your study? At the moment, there’s nothing about it.
In general, since the Authors put forward the research questions, they also should explicitly indicate the research methodology. In the current version, the Authors described it in the subsection Pattern Identification Process. Moreover, it should be even better to adopt the GQM (Goal-Question-Metric) approach, since it a proven method for driving goal-oriented research.
The elaborated patterns did not undergo the validation which might concern experts’ evaluation or the testing on physical objects. In my opinion, this issue it the major flow of this study.
Moreover, please explicitly provide both the theoretical and practical implications as well as the limitations of the study.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In my opinion, this paper is solid and well created. I have found nothing to critique.
Author Response
Thanks very much for this feedback.
Reviewer 3 Report
Looking into the Abstract, I tend to get an impression that the authors have followed the template of some other Publisher for preparing the same. There is perhaps no need of Context, Objective, Method, Results, and the Conclusion in the same and a Abstract documened in a more coherrant manner would, therefore, be much appreciated here.
Line 26 -> OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) ... should be delineated as Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM).
The Transition from Paragraph 1 to 2 is pretty weak. There needs to be some coherrance so that the underlying rationale of the Release Planning becomes more evident to the readers.
Line 192 -> The terminology defines planning objects (i) and different dates (ii) should be delineated as, The terminology defines (i) planning objects and (ii) different dates.
The Methodology for addressing the RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3 in Section 4.1, i.e., Research Questions, should be presented in a more categorical manner.
The Captions of the Figures 2 - 18 should be documented in a much more categorical manner. Too many similar sort of Figures are also inhibiting the readibility of this particular manuscript and the authors, therefore, should look into certain ways to address this particular matter.
The underlying rationale of Category A and Category B is not quite clear and more illustration pertinent to the same is indispensable here.
Also, what does it mean by Delivery Dates on Line 478? Perhaps, it has been indented by mistake.
There are issues with the Jargon, Sentence Structure, and Punctuation here and the same need to be carefully addressed, i.e., a careful Proofreading is higly indispensable.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
The paper presents eight release planning patterns, which both address the fixed boundary conditions and structure the actual planning content of a release plan.
The study is interesting as a recurring problem in an automotive context based on real life examples. There are presented the background, purpose of the study and the research flow.
The authors must present the limitation.
However, the conclusions are scarce, they must be reformulated for a better highlighting of the authors contributions versus other similar topic papers.
I recommend to place in an Appendix a list of abbreviations that would contribute to the readability of the manuscript, even if some of the acronyms are well known in technical literature.
Please reconsider the figures title accordingly.
Minor English language improvements could be done.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
First and foremost, I would like to thank the Authors for their time and effort. However, not all issues have been addressed, in particular the Authors simply neglected the following point:
"please explicitly provide both the theoretical and practical implications as well as the limitations of the study".
Since it is first round of the review process, I am willing to treat this as the unconscious oversight. Nevertheless, I will like to ask the Authors to provide the afromentioned content.
To sum up. The Authors have sucessuflly addressed all the issues raised, except the one.
Author Response
Dear reviewer 1,
please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for addressing the Comments.
Author Response
Dear reviewer 3,
thanks very much for your feedback.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
I accept the paper in the current version.
