Implementation of Demand Forecasting Module of ERP System in Mass Customization Industry—Case Studies^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Compliments on your work. I believe your work deals with an important aspect of modern-day business/production facilities. While your effort is appreciated, overall, the impression your article gives is that of an industry-based executive report and not a research paper. I think you should have defined your research problem way more accurately and prominently. Many of your sentences are not justified at all and there is a substantial shortage of good literature review. I am making these comments to help you improve on your article, because I do believe mass customization is the way to go. 

Please consider these following comments and please consider fixing them: 

- Please define the research problem accurately and in detail. I did not come across what I would consider as the core of the research in an explicitely described manner.

- Please add to the literature review and references based on contemporary discussions on mass customizations.

- Some material is just not adding any value. For example, I don't think Figure 1 is adding any value to a research article. Please go through your article carefully to see if the material you have provided is adding directly any value to your arguments?

- Table 1, the ERP implementation model. Why is that being even mentioned? How is the description of the implementation model helping your arguments for mass customization? I think simply listing the methods is good enough and explaining how your model has evolved further from these methods. 

- When you talk about PMBOK and PRINCE2, you should also mention whether you surveyed literature on AGILE. You will find that there are many ERP solutions that do use AGILE approaches and not PMBOK/PRINCE2. 

- On Page 14, you are claiming that the implementation time has gone down from 35 to 25 days. I think you need to provide more justification and arguments (and even more validation) of this claim. You need to specify how many different scenarios you had executed as a part of your study. You need to specify how, exactly, you measured the duration. What were the experimental conditions? You also need to specify whether there was a study of other correspondingly important factors, such as QUALITY, when the time to implementation was reduced. 

- You should mention some parameters that are important in the gap between semi-finished and finished product. For example, how many elements had to CHANGE in order to reach from semi-finished to finished? If only a small change is needed, then it is more mass production and less customization. If larger change is needed, then it is the other way round. Without knowing the extend to which products are required to be customized, it is difficulty to understand and quantify the impact of your model. 

ALSO,

There are number of English errors - your article must be proof read professionally before you resubmit. Without that it is not easy to read at all. For example>>

- right from Page 1 line 3 onwards, singular and plural are getting all jumbled up. 

- P 3, Line 91, In section 6 [we] propose

- P 3, Line 119 [It should be considered in production planning] - this sentence makes no sense and should be rewritten. Same applies to all other sentences in the article. 

- P 4, Line 178. long [delivery] times; Line 189 simple solutions are [using]

- P 5, Line 204, [gab]? should be [gap]

..... and so on. Numerous English errors make it very difficult to read the article. 

----

I wish you the very best and, again, compliments on your study which is important. 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments. Thanks to them, we have made significant changes to the article. Please see the attachment, there are detailed responses to your comments. 

Best Regards,
Katarzyna Grobler-Dębska

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

As it currently stands, the paper is hardly a research paper and more close to a technical reporting or consulting piece.
The introduction contains not a single reference to theory, which implies that the paper has potentially no reason to be presented. What is the research gap? How is this supported with current literature? What is the paper adds to current academic and pracitioner discussion.
The authors should realize a real review of current literature (including many scientifici works of 2020-2022).
The method is also weak. What is research theory that brings to adopting a specific research methodology (which one and why?) Provide a chart showing all the research steps with input and output at each stage. Bring a discussion of metholodogy development which spans from information systems implementation (e.g. design science) to a qualitative application of case study analysis and discussion.
Present results at the light of the envisioned research scenario and be specific in describing how and why the papers advances current knowledge and how it support pracitioner/managerial action (guidelies, lessons learned from the case?).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments. Thanks to them, we have made significant changes to the article. Please see the attachment, there are detailed responses to your comments. 

Best Regards,
Katarzyna Grobler-Dębska

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The reviewed study is interesting and concerns an important research problem. Forecasting demand and meeting individual customer needs are very important issues. The article is of a conceptual nature. To improve the study, I recommend a few changes:

1.    Despite the conceptual character of the article, I propose to increase the position of literature.

2.    The subsection "Discussion" is not a discussion. The discussion is conducted with the views of other scientists.

3.    The article refers too much to the previous article by the Authors. This term, “This paper is an extended version of our paper published”, is not appropriate. What does it mean?

4.    The three keywords are the repetition of the title words.

5.    The source should be provided under the table and diagrams.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments. Thanks to them, we have made significant changes to the article. Please see the attachment, there are detailed responses to your comments. 

Best Regards,
Katarzyna Grobler-Dębska

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper looks more a technical report rather than a scientific paper. The introuction needs to describe a real research gap (which cannot be the evolution of ERP systems) based on recent and authoritative literature. Theory background is limited and needs to be expanded in terms of the different research streams of concern for the study. The research method is not tipical of a research paper. The authors need to frame along a real scientific methodology (e.g. design science research, case study research) wirth examples from other applications in literature. The result section is long and too much articulated (sections, sub-sections). There is a proliferaiton of bullet points, which is again more tyipical of a technical report. Make the structure more a narrative and remove bullet points, unless they are strictly needed. There is no a real discussion section in terms of advancements respect to extant literature (theory implications)  and practitioner value.