Service Process Modeling in Practice: A Case Study in an Automotive Repair Service Provider

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

An interesting research problem has been addressed.

The article has a proper structure.

The objectives have been formulated, but there is no research hypothesis/hypotheses.

The scope of literary studies is satisfactory.

The results of the conducted research may constitute a source for comparative research.

The research period has not been clearly formulated. However, the data have a partially dynamic dimension, the years 2022 and 2023.

Detailed comments:

• page 8, figure 1, it is difficult to consider that the figure presents "steps", a change of graphics should be considered,
• figures 6 and 7 are incomprehensible, there is no description of the size, scale,
• figures 8 and 9 are developed in a slightly different way than 6 and 7, but their description is also incomplete,
• in the part entitled "Discussion" there are no references to the literature,
• in the "Conclusion" there are no references to the obtained research results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I have been invited to review your paper "Modeling Service Processes to Improve Performance in the Automotive Industry"

I have the following comments:

Title: You should revise it to make sure it is representative of your research. Moreover, it should be evident for the reader that you are presenting the results of one single case study.

Introduction: There are multiple statement that are not backed by references creating the impression they are part of your original contribution. Should that not be the case, please ensure you insert relevant references, e.g., lines 48-50, 51-52, 55-57, etc. 

Lines 55-57 and 58-59 are identical. Please revise this.

Lines 66-69 are not clear, particularly when you indicate "related to the after-sales service department activity at the end of 2022" Please clarify. 

On a general note, it would be necessary that you revise your paper and provide a straightforward and detailed explanation of your case study as well as the rationale of your choice, the way you have selected it and how representative of the target sector is. Please also indicate how your choice might have impacted the results of your analysis.

Line 68 refers to the repair services in the automotive industry, please clarify why you focus on this segment.

You might wish to provide the reader with a theoretical framework of your research. This could include a graphical representation to shed light on your approach. Currently, I had difficulties to follow your paper and understand your approach.

Theoretical considerations: Once more, there are multiple statements without any references making it difficult to understand when you are quoting prior work and when you are making original contributions. Please revise this section, accordingly.

Materials and methods: Please revise this version and ensure it is clear for a reader non-familiar with the topic. This section seems to contain annotations and information form your case study without proper explanations making it very difficult to understand what you talk about. Also, please revise the section using research lenses.

In line 263 you refer to a framework you seem to have used without any further clarification. Please explain it further.

Service process analysis and modelling: is this part of your research? Which are your contribution(-s)?

Section 4.3. refers to an analysis at the end of 2023. It is not clear what the analysis was of or by whom and how it was undertaken.

Results and discussions : It is not clear how your research results into the results and discussions you present in this section. 

Thank you and good luck.

Anonymous reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comment:

The modelling of service processes focused on performance reinforcement in the automotive sector is an intriguing research issue that is covered in this manuscript. Both the theoretical framework and the case study’s methodological design need more development and improvement. The managerial implications drawn from the current analysis can also be expanded.

Specific comments:

In order to improve the global quality of the manuscript, the following recommendations are made available:

1. The introductory item needs to identify the caveat found in the literature, as well as to present the contributions of the current approach.
2. The section ‘2. Theoretical Considerations’ requires further work and refinement, by incorporating studies outlining the importance of strategic collaboration oriented to innovation, in the context of globalization, namely: DOI: 10.1504/IJESB.2009.023357
3. In the same previously referred section, it should be avoided the user of bullets. Please revise the corresponding paragraphs.
4. The same comment applies to the subsequent sections, that is, eliminating the use of bullets.
5. The technical detail about the case study needs to be displayed, even if it anonymised. Adding to the previous, the references used for structuring the case should be provided.
6. The managerial implications need to be provided.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read your paper with interest. I find that it touches on an interesting topic and worthy of further study. The topic is potentially interesting to the journal readership, and the empirical case is relevant. However, despite these merits, the paper has some major problems. These issues should be reworked before the manuscript is ready for publication.

The bullet points should be avoided.

Regarding the contributions of the study discussed in the introduction, they should be extended. That is, what is the current study presenting that previous studies did not?

On page 4, it is stated: “Some studies have focused on the impact of process modeling on specific operational metrics.” These studies should be referenced.

Contributions of the study are discussed twice - in the introduction and in the literature review. They should be discussed once.

Please, check previous studies published in the journal, to see how to discuss empirical sample, methodology and results.

On page 6, it is noted: “Several statistical tools and techniques were used to analyze and interpret the data, such as:” However, there is no descriptive analysis, no correlation coefficients, and there are no econometric results that are reported.

The structure of the paper could be improved. Paragraphs should not contain one sentence.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the Authors for their response to the racenzja.

I accept the scope of the changes introduced. I still have doubts about the editing of the figures, which show that the years 2022 and 2023 consisted of only six months. The figures are still incorrectly edited.

Author Response

We acknowledge the reviewer's concern regarding the presentation of data in Figures 6, 7, 8, and 9, which display data for only six months of 2022 and 2023. We understand that this may give the impression of an incomplete yearly representation.
To clarify, the data presented in these figures represents the first six months of each year. This timeframe was chosen for several reasons:

• Focus on the Most Relevant Period: The first six months of 2023 were the primary period of observation and intervention implementation. Comparing this period with the corresponding period in 2022 allows for a direct assessment of the impact of the changes made.
• Data Availability: Complete data for the full year of 2023 have not been available at the time of analysis.
• Consistency: To maintain a consistent comparison, we used the corresponding six-month period from 2022.

We have added a clarifying sentence in the text accompanying the figures to explicitly state that the data represents the first six months of the year. This will help avoid any misunderstanding about the timeframe represented.

We thank the reviewer for their careful attention to detail and for helping us improve the clarity of our research.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the revised version of your manuscript and the responses to my comments.

Best regards,

Anonymous reviewer

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your kind acknowledgment and for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate your valuable feedback, which has significantly contributed to improving the quality of our work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s)

Considering the changes made, it is recommended the acceptance of the manuscript.

Good luck with your research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your positive feedback and the recommendation for acceptance. We are grateful for your time and the constructive comments that helped us improve our manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comments are addressed at a satisfactory level. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your positive feedback and for confirming that your comments have been addressed satisfactorily. We appreciate your time and valuable input.