A Method for Modelling Business-Critical Architecture Decisions in Engineer-to-Order Companies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well written. The topic is also quite interesting. However, there are minor elements for improvement:

Line 365 'Skinner [45] the reference is not mentioned in List of references.

Lines 734 and 751 Are same titles

The title mentioned that the presented method is related to ETO companies, but the paper presented only an example from a Civil Engineering (Construction) company. In my opinion 'ETO company' is a broader concept. So, my suggestion is to change the title or elaborate discussion part, especially with a description of how the presented method could be applied by different types of ETO companies.

Author Response

In the updated manuscript, changed parts are highlighted in yellow.

 

Comment 1:

The manuscript is well written. The topic is also quite interesting.

 

Response 1:

Thank you.

 

Comment 2:

However, there are minor elements for improvement:

Line 365 'Skinner [45] the reference is not mentioned in List of references.

 

Response 2:

Thanks for pointing this out. The reference list has now been corrected.

 

Comment 3:

Lines 734 and 751 Are same titles

 

Response 3:

Thanks for noticing this error. The title of Sec. 5.2 has been corrected to "Implications for practice".

 

Comment 4:

The title mentioned that the presented method is related to ETO companies, but the paper presented only an example from a Civil Engineering (Construction) company. In my opinion 'ETO company' is a broader concept. So, my suggestion is to change the title or elaborate discussion part, especially with a description of how the presented method could be applied by different types of ETO companies.

 

Response 4:

Thanks for bringing this ambiguity to our attention. Thus, from line 487, we have clarified that the use of the generic bathroom example when explaining the CAM method was done for pedagogical reasons to clearly illustrate the CAM method without confusing the reader with too many technical details. Subsequently, in the case results, the method is applied to an ETO company delivering production facilities. Nevertheless, we appreciate that this might not have been clear from the original manuscript and thus a point for confusion. As such, we have attempted to clarify this from line 487.

 

Furthermore, the Introduction (Sec. 1, 1^st paragraph) clarifies that ETO is a broader concept, including, for example, manufacturing, construction, and custom machinery.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend a major revision of the manuscript to address the following critical areas:

1. Incorporation of Lean Principles for Efficiency
   The theoretical background would benefit from integrating the findings of Braglia Marcello et al. on the application of lean principles in ETO (Engineer-to-Order) environments. The authors should emphasize how reducing waste and improving process efficiency can significantly impact lead times and costs. Providing specific examples of practical applications will help ground the discussion and make the contribution more actionable.

2. Emphasis on Digitalization of Supply Chains
   The role of digital tools and technologies, as highlighted by Dallasega Patrick et al., deserves a more prominent discussion. Adding a subsection on how technologies such as IoT and AI can reduce lead times and enhance the management of complex supply chains will strengthen the paper. Detailed insights into the practical benefits of digitalization in ETO contexts are needed to enrich the narrative.

3. Focus on Business-Critical Decisions
   The section on product architectures should be expanded to highlight the importance of prioritizing business-critical decisions. This could include a framework or criteria for identifying these decisions and examples of their impact on governance and project outcomes. Case studies from the literature would add depth and clarity to this discussion.

4. Cross-Functional Integration
   The manuscript should provide a more comprehensive analysis of cross-functional integration, detailing how engineering, procurement, and manufacturing can collaborate effectively. Including a case study that demonstrates successful integration and outlining practical steps to achieve it would significantly enhance this section. The benefits of such integration in reducing lead times and costs should also be clearly articulated.

Addressing these points will substantially improve the manuscript’s clarity, depth, and relevance, ensuring it meets the expectations for publication.

Author Response

Comment 1:

I recommend a major revision of the manuscript to address the following critical areas:

1. Incorporation of Lean Principles for Efficiency
   The theoretical background would benefit from integrating the findings of Braglia Marcello et al. on the application of lean principles in ETO (Engineer-to-Order) environments. The authors should emphasize how reducing waste and improving process efficiency can significantly impact lead times and costs. Providing specific examples of practical applications will help ground the discussion and make the contribution more actionable.

 

Response 1:

Thanks for suggesting to incorporate Lean Principles for Efficiency. This is now elaborated in Section 2.4.

 

Comment 2:

2. Emphasis on Digitalization of Supply Chains
   The role of digital tools and technologies, as highlighted by Dallasega Patrick et al., deserves a more prominent discussion. Adding a subsection on how technologies such as IoT and AI can reduce lead times and enhance the management of complex supply chains will strengthen the paper. Detailed insights into the practical benefits of digitalization in ETO contexts are needed to enrich the narrative.
   
   

Response 2:

Thanks for suggesting to incorporate more emphasis of digitalization of supply chains. This has now been further elaborated in Section 2.4 (2^nd paragraph).

 

Comment 3:

3. Focus on Business-Critical Decisions
   The section on product architectures should be expanded to highlight the importance of prioritizing business-critical decisions. This could include a framework or criteria for identifying these decisions and examples of their impact on governance and project outcomes. Case studies from the literature would add depth and clarity to this discussion.

Response 3:

Thanks for suggesting to incorporate more focus on business-critical decisions. This has now been elaborated in Section 2.2.

 

Comment 4:

4. Cross-Functional Integration
   The manuscript should provide a more comprehensive analysis of cross-functional integration, detailing how engineering, procurement, and manufacturing can collaborate effectively. Including a case study that demonstrates successful integration and outlining practical steps to achieve it would significantly enhance this section. The benefits of such integration in reducing lead times and costs should also be clearly articulated.

 

Response 4:

Thanks for pointing out the need for a more comprehensive analysis of cross-functional integration. This has now been highlighted by the title of Sec. 2.1 and is elaborated in the final paragraph of Sec. 2.1.

 

Comment 5:

Addressing these points will substantially improve the manuscript’s clarity, depth, and relevance, ensuring it meets the expectations for publication.

 

Response 5:

Thank you for the comments.

 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses a topic that has been known for quite some time; however, it remains relevant due to its potential impact on sustainability, a particularly important issue within the European Union.

The literature analysis presented is basic yet useful. The methods chosen for the analysis are generic and lack innovation. While the results and subsequent analysis are logical, they remain relatively straightforward (too simple)

Overall, the paper does not demonstrate the level of scientific contribution required for publication in an impactful, current-content-indexed journal. To meet this standard, the study would need to offer greater scientific value or originality.

A method for modelling business-critical architecture decisions in Engineer-to-Order companies

The paper presents moves in the vicinity of an interesting research topic with special importance in the engineering sectors

The abstract of the paper is clear, it is more like a mix of introductory elements and the real abstract but it is fine

The introduction section is also well-cited although I must say I do not like chain-like citations like the ones in the paper, it does not allow for a proper analysis of the sources but instead it offers a general take on them. Despite this the authors could properly identify gaps which is key in this phase.

The literature analysis section is solid, I like the analysis and conclusions made.

The materials and methods section is interesting. The authors manifest in in some methodological and scientific contributions being the latter less pronounced. It is a real pity the authors could not explained more of the context, that could be vital for verification, a step of mandatory character in scientific research.

The result section is well-structured, the overview of the CAM method understandable, the same applied for the populated version and the to-be scenario. All section is clear and properly explained.

I must say however, the analytical and qualitative nature of the section diminish a bit its scientific appeal. I was expecting for some mathematical formulation to explain some of the process.

The Discussion and conclusion section is clear, they once more use the same chain-lie citation style, which is not useful at times.

Overall, I think the paper offers an interesting perspective to the area, however, the scientific soundness of it is kind of limited. The lack of quantitative measurables diminish the overall scientific appeal. The added values should be also emphasized in a more pronounced extent.

Author Response

Comment 1:

The paper addresses a topic that has been known for quite some time; however, it remains relevant due to its potential impact on sustainability, a particularly important issue within the European Union.

The literature analysis presented is basic yet useful.

 

Response 1:

Thank you.

 

Comment 2:

The methods chosen for the analysis are generic and lack innovation. While the results and subsequent analysis are logical, they remain relatively straightforward (too simple). Overall, the paper does not demonstrate the level of scientific contribution required for publication in an impactful, current-content-indexed journal. To meet this standard, the study would need to offer greater scientific value or originality.

Response 2:

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. To address these comments, we have made several extensions of the literature review (Sec. 2) to further demonstrate gaps in the literature, which we seek to address. Furthermore, to make the contributions clearer, we have modified the Discussion and Conclusion section (Sec. 5, 1, 1st paragraph and Sec. 5.1, 2^nd paragraph). Finally, the Introduction now further clarifies the gaps in the literature, which we seek to address (Sec. 1, 1st paragraph).

 

Comment 3:

A method for modelling business-critical architecture decisions in Engineer-to-Order companies

The paper presents moves in the vicinity of an interesting research topic with special importance in the engineering sectors

The abstract of the paper is clear, it is more like a mix of introductory elements and the real abstract but it is fine

The introduction section is also well-cited although I must say I do not like chain-like citations like the ones in the paper, it does not allow for a proper analysis of the sources but instead it offers a general take on them. Despite this the authors could properly identify gaps which is key in this phase.

 

Response 3:

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. To address this comment, the Introduction now further clarifies the gaps in the literature, which we seek to address. Furthermore, the references have also been restructured accordingly (Sec. 1, 1st paragraph).

 

Comment 4

The literature analysis section is solid, I like the analysis and conclusions made.

The materials and methods section is interesting. The authors manifest in in some methodological and scientific contributions being the latter less pronounced. It is a real pity the authors could not explained more of the context, that could be vital for verification, a step of mandatory character in scientific research.

 

Response 4:

We appreciate your bringing to our attention the benefits of elaborating and providing more context to the methods sections. Therefore, we have added more details on the experience of the respondents and the purpose of interviews, meetings, and workshops in Table 2 (Sec. 3.2).

 

Comment 5

The result section is well-structured, the overview of the CAM method understandable, the same applied for the populated version and the to-be scenario. All section is clear and properly explained.

I must say however, the analytical and qualitative nature of the section diminish a bit its scientific appeal. I was expecting for some mathematical formulation to explain some of the process.

The Discussion and conclusion section is clear, they once more use the same chain-lie citation style, which is not useful at times.

 

Response 5:

Thanks for the feedback. This issue has now been addressed in the Discussion and Conclusion section (Sec. 5, 1st paragraph), similarly to the changes of the Introduction section.

 

Comment 6

Overall, I think the paper offers an interesting perspective to the area, however, the scientific soundness of it is kind of limited. The lack of quantitative measurables diminish the overall scientific appeal. The added values should be also emphasized in a more pronounced extent.

 

Response 6:

Thank you for the comments.

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The manuscript discusses a method called the Cross-functional Architecture Matrix (CAM) designed to help Engineer-to-Order (ETO) companies manage and improve their product architectures. ​ The CAM method aims to identify and prioritize business-critical architecture decisions that impact cost and lead time across the full value chain and various functional disciplines. ​ The method was tested in a case study involving a company that designs manufacturing plants, revealing significant improvements such as reduced installation hours, faster time to production, and cost reductions. ​ The CAM method involves three main steps: modeling cross-functional architecture, analyzing it, and making decisions based on the analysis. ​ The study highlights the importance of focusing on a few critical decisions to achieve substantial benefits and suggests that the CAM method can help ETO companies better govern their architecture decisions and maintain design flexibility. ​ Although the idea of the research is interesting, there are a lot of shortcomings that should be addressed to make the manuscript publishable:   In the abstract, please provide information about who can benefit from your work.   Introduction should be widened by more detailed information on the topic in hand. This should be done to interest the reader. At the end of the introduction, add the paragraph that introduces the following sections of the paper.   Theoretical background is well prepared.   In Table 2, you should provide information about the experience and age of the respondents. Please clarify in more detail the main idea of these interviews, meetings, and workshops.   Please explain the logic of introducing a cross-functional architecture matrix with a non-ETO process. From my point of view, it doesn't make sense, but I am sure there is an explanation.   Discussion is very weak. It doesn't explain the contribution of this research in a clear way. How can we use the results in other research? What are the benefits compared to previous research?   Limitations and future research directions are not detailed enough. Please elaborate this in more detail while keeping it logical.   Best regards!

Author Response

Comment 1

The manuscript discusses a method called the Cross-functional Architecture Matrix (CAM) designed to help Engineer-to-Order (ETO) companies manage and improve their product architectures. ​ The CAM method aims to identify and prioritize business-critical architecture decisions that impact cost and lead time across the full value chain and various functional disciplines. ​ The method was tested in a case study involving a company that designs manufacturing plants, revealing significant improvements such as reduced installation hours, faster time to production, and cost reductions. ​ The CAM method involves three main steps: modeling cross-functional architecture, analyzing it, and making decisions based on the analysis. ​ The study highlights the importance of focusing on a few critical decisions to achieve substantial benefits and suggests that the CAM method can help ETO companies better govern their architecture decisions and maintain design flexibility. ​Although the idea of the research is interesting, there are a lot of shortcomings that should be addressed to make the manuscript publishable:

In the abstract, please provide information about who can benefit from your work.  

 

Response 1:

Thanks for pointing this out. The Abstract (final line) now further elaborates on how practitioners and researchers may benefit from our work.

 

Comment 2

Introduction should be widened by more detailed information on the topic in hand. This should be done to interest the reader.

 

Response 2:

We appreciate the appeal of widening the introduction with more detailed information about product variety in ETO companies. Therefore, we have elaborated on this (Sec. 1, 1^st paragraph).

 

Comment 3

At the end of the introduction, add the paragraph that introduces the following sections of the paper.  

 

Response 3:

An introduction of the following sections of the paper has now been added to the Introduction section (Sec. 1, final paragraph).

 

Comment 4

Theoretical background is well prepared.   In Table 2, you should provide information about the experience and age of the respondents. Please clarify in more detail the main idea of these interviews, meetings, and workshops.  

 

Response 4:

We appreciate you bringing to our attention the benefits of elaborating and providing more context to the methods sections. Therefore, we have added more details on the experience of the respondents and the purpose of interviews, meetings, and workshops in Table 2 (Sec. 3.2).

 

Comment 5

Please explain the logic of introducing a cross-functional architecture matrix with a non-ETO process. From my point of view, it doesn't make sense, but I am sure there is an explanation.  

 

Response 5:

Thanks for bringing this ambiguity to our attention. Thus, Section 4.1.2 (1^st paragraph) now clarifies the motives for using the generic bathroom example when explaining the CAM method. As described, this was done for pedagogical reasons to clearly illustrate the CAM method without confusing the reader with too many technical details. Subsequently, in the case results, the method is applied to an ETO company delivering production facilities. Nevertheless, we appreciate that this might not have been clear from the original manuscript and, thus, a potential point for confusion. As such, we have now clarified this.

 

Comment 6

Discussion is very weak. It doesn't explain the contribution of this research in a clear way. How can we use the results in other research? What are the benefits compared to previous research?  

 

Response 6:

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Thus, the “Implication for research” section (Sec. 5.1, 2^nd paragraph) has now been further detailed to better explain the benefits of the results and how they can be used in other research.

 

Comment 7

Limitations and future research directions are not detailed enough. Please elaborate this in more detail while keeping it logical.  

 

Response 7:

Thanks for pointing this out. We have now added further details to the section on limitations (Sec. 5.3, 1^st paragraph).

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are some typos, but the current version could be accepted for publication. There are also several errors in the References. Please, check them.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

-

Author Response

Comment 1
There are some typos, but the current version could be accepted for publication. There are also several errors in the References. Please, check them.

Response 1

Thanks for noticing this. The references in the 2nd half of the first paragraph in the introduction has been fixed, along with the references in the first paragraph of section 5. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the authors have properly addressed most of my concerns. They have provided a better version of the paper.

Author Response

Comment 1

I think the authors have properly addressed most of my concerns. They have provided a better version of the paper.

Response 1

Thanks for the feedback.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made great efforts to address all the issues raised in the review process. The improvements are significant. I am more than happy to propose acceptance of the paper.

Best regards!

Author Response

Comment 1

The authors made great efforts to address all the issues raised in the review process. The improvements are significant. I am more than happy to propose acceptance of the paper.

Best regards!

Response 1

Thanks for the feedback.