Review Reports - Shared Product Architectures for Engineering-to-Order Buyers and Suppliers: Insights from a Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript explores the potential for engineer-to-order companies to capitalise financially on their modular product architectures by sharing them with their suppliers. I find the idea to be novel; however, the manuscript lacks sufficient depth. For a research paper, a solid theoretical foundation and comparative analysis are generally essential. Unfortunately, this manuscript does not present a clear theoretical basis, nor does it offer any comparison, especially quantitative comparison, with other advanced approaches. Rather than a full-fledged research paper, this work reads more like a proposal. Alternatively, it could serve as a starting point for further research. Therefore, I regret to say that I do not recommend accepting this paper.

Author Response

Reviewer 1, Comment 1

Response:

Thank you.

Reviewer 1, Comment 2

however, the manuscript lacks sufficient depth. For a research paper, a solid theoretical foundation and comparative analysis are generally essential. Unfortunately, this manuscript does not present a clear theoretical basis, nor does it offer any comparison, especially quantitative comparison, with other advanced approaches.

Response:

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We do acknowledge that the study could benefit from further comparative analysis. As such, the manuscript now includes this in section 5.5. Here, the results of our case are compared to several recent, highly cited studies on modularization and supplier collaboration. The comparative analysis shows that our findings, particularly the mechanisms and financial benefits of shared modular architectures, are strongly supported by broader literature, including large sample survey studies. However, while previous research has primarily focused on aggregate relationships or general conditions for supplier integration, our study advances the field by detailing the specific, operational mechanisms and quantifiable financial impacts made possible through harmonized system decomposition and supplier–buyer architecture sharing in an ETO context.

Thank you for your comment regarding the theoretical foundation of the manuscript. We respectfully suggest that, while the need for clarity is fair, the theoretical grounding of the study is in fact robust and explicitly addressed throughout the paper. The framework and analysis in our study are directly rooted in well-established theories in both the modularity and supplier integration literature. We believe this is especially evident in section 4. As explained below:

Specifically, the work by Sanchez & Mahoney (1996) and subsequent architecture literature serves as a central theoretical mechanism for our work. The original “mirroring” hypothesis (which for clarity is now explicitly mentioned in section 4.1) suggest that the modular structure of technical systems should and often does “mirror” the organizational and relational structures between collaborating firms. This idea is referenced extensively in foundational and recent modularity research, including Salvador et al. (2013), Howard and Squire (2007), and others cited in our comparative analysis. We believe our study helps operationalize this theory in an ETO context by showcasing how harmonized decomposition, modules, and interfaces directly enable optimized and coordinated inter-organizational activities (all common elements of architecture theory), leads to measurable financial benefits.

Reviewer 1, Comment 3

Rather than a full-fledged research paper, this work reads more like a proposal. Alternatively, it could serve as a starting point for further research. Therefore, I regret to say that I do not recommend accepting this paper.

Response:

With the addition of the comparative analysis and the clarifications in the theoretical foundation described above, we hope that these additions now satisfy the improvements needed for publishing this manuscript in the journal.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a relevant and timely exploration of shared product architectures in the engineer-to-order (ETO) context, addressing an underexplored intersection of modular product design and interorganizational collaboration. The proposed framework is well-articulated and supported by a rich case study that provides practical insights and quantifiable outcomes. The contribution is potentially significant for both academic researchers and industry practitioners seeking to improve cost efficiency and coordination in complex supply networks.

However, the study would benefit from several important clarifications and expansions. First, the reliance on a single case company limits the generalizability of the findings; a broader empirical base or comparative cases would strengthen the theoretical robustness. Second, while the claimed financial benefits are compelling, they are based largely on internal estimates and lack independently verifiable data, particularly on the supplier side. Third, the manuscript could better address potential implementation challenges—such as organizational resistance, varying supplier capabilities, or information asymmetry—that may arise when applying the proposed framework in different contexts.

In summary, while the work is promising and well-structured, it requires further refinement in its empirical grounding and discussion of practical constraints in order to maximize its academic and practical impact.

Author Response

Reviewer 2, Comment 1

Response:

Thank you for your recognition.

Reviewer 2, Comment 2

The contribution is potentially significant for both academic researchers and industry practitioners seeking to improve cost efficiency and coordination in complex supply networks. However, the study would benefit from several important clarifications and expansions. First, the reliance on a single case company limits the generalizability of the findings; a broader empirical base or comparative cases would strengthen the theoretical robustness.

Response:
Thanks for the comment regarding the generalizability of the study. We acknowledge that this can be improved in the paper. To improve generalizability a comparative analysis has now been included in the manuscript in section 5.5. Here, the results of our case are compared to several recent, highly cited studies on modularization and supplier collaboration. The comparative analysis shows that our findings, particularly the mechanisms and financial benefits of shared modular architectures, are strongly supported by broader literature, including large sample survey studies. However, while previous research has primarily focused on aggregate relationships or general conditions for supplier integration, our study advances the field by detailing the specific, operational mechanisms and quantifiable financial impacts made possible through harmonized system decomposition and supplier–buyer architecture sharing in an ETO context.

Reviewer 2, Comment 3

Second, while the claimed financial benefits are compelling, they are based largely on internal estimates and lack independently verifiable data, particularly on the supplier side.

Response:

Thank you for this important observation regarding data verifiability. We acknowledge that the financial benefits presented in our study are primarily based on internal company data, which naturally poses some limitations in terms of external verification – particularly regarding supplier-side figures.

However, we would like to note that the cost information reported for the buyer was directly extracted from the company’s SAP ERP system. In the context of this case, these financial records are not only used for internal decision-making but are also reported to public entities as part of statutory and legally binding obligations. This reporting requirement means there are robust controls on data accuracy and auditability, lending a considerable degree of reliability to the buyer-side financial data presented.

That said, we agree that independently verifiable data from the supplier side would provide a fuller picture and further strengthen the empirical basis of our findings. As noted in the manuscript, access to detailed supplier-side cost information was not possible in this case; future research with open-book supplier arrangements or joint reporting mechanisms would be valuable to address this limitation more comprehensively.

Reviewer 2, Comment 4

Third, the manuscript could better address potential implementation challenges—such as organizational resistance, varying supplier capabilities, or information asymmetry—that may arise when applying the proposed framework in different contexts.

Response:

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have addressed potential implementation challenges in the highlighted part of section 6.3. Specifically, we now discuss how organizational resistance, differences in supplier capability, and information asymmetry may affect adoption and outcomes of the proposed framework. We also outline possible mitigation strategies based on our case experience and the broader literature. We believe this addition strengthens the practical relevance and generalizability of our work.

Reviewer 2, Comment 5

Response:

Thank you for your constructive summary and thoughtful feedback. We appreciate your recognition of the manuscript’s potential and have carefully addressed the comments in the revision by strengthening the empirical grounding, extending the comparative analysis, and expanding the discussion of practical implementation challenges as outlined above.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The paper addresses the potential for engineer-to-order companies to generate financial value from their modular product architectures by sharing them with suppliers. Please consider the following comments:

There are several typographical errors throughout the manuscript, particularly in the sections that appear to have undergone the most substantial revisions.
The description of your framework is sometimes lacking in clarity. Please consider including a workflow diagram soon to introduce and explain the process more clearly and concisely.
While the paper appears to propose a generalized methodological contribution, as noted in subsection 6.3, it remains strongly driven by a single case study.

Author Response

Reviewer 3, Comment 1

There are several typographical errors throughout the manuscript, particularly in the sections that appear to have undergone the most substantial revisions.

Response:

Thanks for noticing. The manuscript has now been reviewed accordingly and below are the updates:

The formulas now have a typical numbering format, e.g. Equation (1), and the references in the text are now updated to reflect this. Furthermore, Table 2 now refers to the formulas with the explicit references.
A typo in “budget” in table 2 have also been corrected.
Generally, punctuation errors, capitalization errors, and misused words have been screened and corrected.

Reviewer 3, Comment 2

The description of your framework is sometimes lacking in clarity. Please consider including a workflow diagram soon to introduce and explain the process more clearly and concisely.

Response:

Thank you for pointing this out. A Diagram displaying the overall steps of how the framework has been utilized has now been made and can be found section 4.1 Figure 2.

Reviewer 3, Comment 3

While the paper appears to propose a generalized methodological contribution, as noted in subsection 6.3, it remains strongly driven by a single case study.

Response:

Thanks for the comment regarding the generalizability of the study. We acknowledge that this can be improved in the paper. To improve generalizability, a comparative analysis has now been included in the manuscript in section 5.5. Here, the results of our case are compared to several recent, highly cited studies on modularization and supplier collaboration. The comparative analysis shows that our findings, particularly the mechanisms and financial benefits of shared modular architectures, are strongly supported by broader literature, including large sample survey studies. However, while previous research has primarily focused on aggregate relationships or general conditions for supplier integration, our study advances the field by detailing the specific, operational mechanisms and quantifiable financial impacts made possible through harmonized system decomposition and supplier–buyer architecture sharing in an ETO context.

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present work investigates how engineer-to-order (ETO) companies can financially benefit by sharing modular product architectures with their suppliers. It introduces a framework based on three key elements, which are system decomposition, modules defined and interfaces built, and coordinated activities that facilitate interorganisational sharing, aiming to reduce costs and improve efficiency of all organizations involved in the projects. The authors' thesis is presented in detail and widely supported by a study of the literature. In this regard, the proposed approach explores the possibilities for improving the interaction between the participating companies based on a wider use of already ready-made design solutions from previous orders in subsequent orders by the contracting authority, disclosing design details at an earlier stage of the project. Results from a case study conducted demonstrates that adopting a shared architecture resulted in 10%–35% cost savings, highlighting the potential for low-volume ETO firms to use modular design principles for mutually beneficial outcomes.

I have the following comments and recommendations for the work:
1. Since the improvement of the "interface" between the contracting authority and the companies implementing the project is based on data and results within a specific showcase, it would be good to mention this in the title of the work.
2. It would be good to include a diagram of the structure of suppliers and their sub-suppliers, i.e. what is the hierarchical structure of the "contractor-suppliers" system.
3. What is the meaning and purpose of indicating the duration of the activities in hours given in Table 1? If they are considered as time spent (i.e. in monetary terms) for the purpose of improving the interaction between the contracting authority and suppliers, how does this affect the result of the achieved financial improvements - 10% - 35%?
4. On line 602 the abbreviation OEMs is given, which is not explained in the text.
5. There are also some punctual errors, such as the way the formulas are numbered, as well as references to them in the text, which need to be revised.

Author Response

Reviewer 4, Comment 1

1. Since the improvement of the "interface" between the contracting authority and the companies implementing the project is based on data and results within a specific showcase, it would be good to mention this in the title of the work.

Response:

We appreciate the point and have now updated the title to specifically stress that the paper concerns a specific case study. It is now entitled: Shared Product Architectures for Engineering-to-Order Buyers & Suppliers: Insights from a Case Study.

Reviewer 4, Comment 2

2. It would be good to include a diagram of the structure of suppliers and their sub-suppliers, i.e. what is the hierarchical structure of the "contractor-suppliers" system.

Response:

Thanks for pointing this out to us. We have now included an example of the hierarchical structure of buyer, suppliers and sub-suppliers. This is now referenced in the text and can be found in section 5.1 figure 6.

Reviewer 4, Comment 3

3. What is the meaning and purpose of indicating the duration of the activities in hours given in Table 1? If they are considered as time spent (i.e. in monetary terms) for the purpose of improving the interaction between the contracting authority and suppliers, how does this affect the result of the achieved financial improvements - 10% - 35%?

Response:

Thanks for this comment. To clarify, the purpose of indicating the duration of the activities is to provide some context for how much work went into the phases of qualitative data gathering and facilitation. The hope is that disclosing information in this regard improves reproducibility. To be clear, these hours are not included as a direct monetary cost in the calculation of the reported financial improvements (10%–35%). Rather, the percentage reflects the financial impact achieved through architectural alignment and process improvements, separate from the resource time spent during this research.

Reviewer 4, Comment 4

4. On line 602 the abbreviation OEMs is given, which is not explained in the text.

Response:

Thanks for noticing. This is now explained in the text in section 5.1.

Reviewer 4, Comment 5

5. There are also some punctual errors, such as the way the formulas are numbered, as well as references to them in the text, which need to be revised.

Response:

Thanks for noticing. The formulas now have a typical numbering format, e.g. Equation (1), and the references in the text are now updated to reflect this. Furthermore, Table 2 now refers to the formulas with the explicit references.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a revised manuscript. The author has made some modifications and additions based on the first version. However, after reading through the entire paper, I personally feel that this version still falls far short of meeting the fundamental requirements of a research article — let alone being accepted as a high-quality publication. Therefore, I insist on recommending rejection of the manuscript.

Below are some of my specific comments:

1. The author acknowledged: "We would like to acknowledge the assistance of ChatGPT, developed by OpenAI, for providing helpful suggestions to grammar and improving overall clarity of the manuscript." While I appreciate the honesty, academic writing must be approached with seriousness. In my opinion, allowing the use of ChatGPT could lead to an overwhelming number of submissions, which might negatively impact the integrity of the academic review process.

2. Judging from the presentation of formulas, tables, and other technical aspects, the writing reflects the level of a beginning researcher. I personally believe that not all technical work is suitable to be published as a research paper. This manuscript lacks sufficient depth and offers minimal insight to peers. Only after conducting more thorough investigations and demonstrating some methodological innovation or meaningful application results would it be appropriate for submission.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No comments.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors I regret that I cannot recommend this manuscript for publication due to several fundamental concerns: The paper presents assertions without substantial empirical evidence or theoretical foundation to support its claims. The argumentation relies heavily on speculation rather than rigorous analysis. Regarding Table 1, the methodological approach is predominantly based on qualitative techniques such as interviews and meetings, which lack objective measurement criteria and reproducibility. While qualitative methods have their place in research, the paper would benefit from a more balanced methodological framework incorporating quantifiable metrics. The only quantitative analysis presented in Table 2 raises significant concerns. The reported decreases of -10% and -35% are not supported by verifiable data sources or transparent computational procedures. Without a clear explanation of the statistical methodology and data provenance, these figures cannot be validated by the scientific community. Given these methodological limitations and the absence of scientific rigor, I believe this manuscript does not meet the standards required for publication as a scientific paper. The manuscript contains no meaningful quantitative analysis, experiments, or theoretical foundation.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well structured. The literature review is detailed and provides clear research gap. The proposed framework is well described giving its novelty and strength.

To begin with a few technical details: please check the way you have presented all the images in the text. The text should flow below and above the image. Never on the same line as the image.

In my opinion , the paper would gain more value if you showed the cost calculation in more details ( session 6.4).

Also, if you could discuss more the scalability of the framework, how it is applicable for different type of companies and different projects and scenarios.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf