Assessing Risks in Dairy Supply Chain Systems: A System Dynamics Approach
, Rasoul Khandan 2, Dilshad Sarwar 1 and Alireza Daneshkhah 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is well-written, interesting and deserves to be published after minor revision. The Authors presented the comprehensive literature review, described the applied research methodology and presented the results clearly. I just have some minor comments and remarks:
1. In Table 7 there is legend underneath: "Table Note: F=Flow; S=Stock; A= Auxiliary". It does not refer to this table, but to Table 6.
2. Lines 152-153 - please remove the Enter.
3. In Table 7 you define equations. However, they are nowhere to be found in the text. Please, include at least some examples of these equations in the text.
4. In the conclusions section, I think it is worth mentioning great risk (maybe for future research) that current, ongoing war in Ukraine, posesses on the global food supply.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1
We would like to thank the esteemed reviewer, and the editorial team at Systems for the important and valuable comments and suggestions. We have carefully incorporated your comments into our manuscript and thus considerably revised it. Thus, please note that there has not been any rebuttal on any of the points raised. We have highlighted the revised sections in track changes throughout the paper. We have also provided the following responses to the reviewers' comments:
The manuscript is well-written, interesting and deserves to be published after minor revision. The Authors presented the comprehensive literature review, described the applied research methodology and presented the results clearly. I just have some minor comments and remarks:
Point 1: In Table 7 there is legend underneath: "Table Note: F=Flow; S=Stock; A= Auxiliary". It does not refer to this table, but to Table 6.
Thank you for your comment. We have now deleted the table note below table 7.
Point 2: Lines 152-153 - please remove the Enter.
Thank you for raising this point. We have now removed the enter in lines 152-153
Point 3: In Table 7 you define equations. However, they are nowhere to be found in the text. Please, include at least some examples of these equations in the text.
Thank you for your comment. Definition of two equations as examples have been added to lines 446-451.
Point 4: In the conclusions section, I think it is worth mentioning great risk (maybe for future research) that current, ongoing war in Ukraine, posesses on the global food supply.
Thank you for raising this point. Several important risks have been included in the conclusion section to address the comment in relation to future research.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is exciting. However, I have some comments to improve it. The comments are:
1. In the introduction, Why do you apply System Dynamics (SD) in your research? What are SD's advantages and limitations compared to other simulation approach, such as Discrete Event Simulation, Agent-based Simulation, and hybrid simulation? What does comply with a risk supply chain problems in the dairy industry?
2. Fig. 8 has intended to visualize the causal loop diagram, but unfortunately, fig. 8 has not shown any feedback in the systems. So, it would be better if you could improve Fig. 8
3. Referring to some literature, System Dynamics has at least three catagories of validation, and there is (1) Structure validation, (2) Behavior validation, and (3) Policy validation. Meanwhile, you focused on structure validation using the extreme condition and dimensional consistency test. Could you elaborate on the justification of the validation chosen?
4. In Table 9, why did the built model treat all risks as an exogenous variable? Meanwhile, there is any feedback on the relationship between risk agents and risk events in the dairy supply chain.
5.The end of the paper needs to elaborate on the research implication to theoretical development and managerial/policy practice.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2
We would like to thank the reviewer and the editorial team of Systems for the important and valuable comments and suggestions. We have carefully incorporated your comments into our manuscript and thus considerably revised it. Thus, please note that there has not been any rebuttal on any of the points raised. We have highlighted the revised sections in track changes throughout the paper. We have also provided the following responses to your comments:
The paper is exciting. However, I have some comments to improve it. The comments are:
Point 1: In the introduction, Why do you apply System Dynamics (SD) in your research? What are SD's advantages and limitations compared to other simulation approaches, such as Discrete Event Simulation, Agent-based Simulation, and hybrid simulation? What does comply with a risk supply chain problems in the dairy industry?
Firstly, we would like to thank the esteemed reviewer for the valuable suggestions. We have now revised the introduction section to incorporate the suggestion and highlight the points that you have mentioned in point 1.
Point 2: Fig. 8 has intended to visualize the causal loop diagram, but unfortunately, fig. 8 has not shown any feedback in the systems. So, it would be better if you could improve Fig. 8
Thank you for this valuable comment. As you rightly pointed out, the gap in the feedback system in the variable affected by risk factors in Fig 8, the feedback loop has now been added to Fig.8 to improve CLD for involved risks. Also, an explanation regarding this change has been added to Section 5.1.
Point 3: Referring to some literature, System Dynamics has at least three catagories of validation, and there is (1) Structure validation, (2) Behavior validation, and (3) Policy validation. Meanwhile, you focused on structure validation using the extreme condition and dimensional consistency test. Could you elaborate on the justification of the validation chosen?
Thank you for your feedback. In this research, we have followed Forrester and Senge (1980) suggestion when testing the model’s validity. According to Forrester and Senge (1980) three validation tests – of the structure and parameters under extreme conditions and of the dimensional consistency of SD models are required, as already done in our paper. The same approach has been applied by Li et al. (2016). Also, Barlas (1996) suggests the following validation tests: The direct structure tests were carried out first, then the structure-oriented behaviour tests.
Direct structure test in this research helped us to test structure-confirmation and parameter-confirmation. Structural and parameter verification test for this research can be confirmed already as equations and cause-and-effect relationship between parameters has been defined using existing literature (i.e.,[18],[34,35],[44],[75], [83],[93],[97,98]).
This research then conducts the structure-oriented behaviour tests using an extreme-condition test to check whether the SFD model effectively coincides with the expected behaviour that assumes for the system.
Also, in order to test the dimensional consistency among all the equations, this research has used an inbuilt unit-checking feature in Vensim software.
However, some of the developed frameworks and proposed models are in an infancy stage and need further validation in future research and as part of a PhD study associated with the submitted paper.
Barlas, Y. 1996. Formal aspects of model validity and validation in system dynamics. System Dynamics Review, 12, 183-210.
Forrester, J.W.; Senge, P.M. Tests for Building Confidence in System Dynamics Models. TIMS Stud. Manag. Sci. 1980, 14, 209–228.
Li, C.; Ren, J.; Wang, H. A System Dynamics Simulation Model of Chemical Supply Chain Transportation Risk Management Systems. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2016, 89, 71–83, doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2016.02.019.
Point 4: In Table 9, why did the built model treat all risks as an exogenous variable? Meanwhile, there is any feedback on the relationship between risk agents and risk events in the dairy supply chain.
Thank you. We appreciate this specific feedback; However, as shown in Figure 6, risks caused by exogenous shocks or disruptions to supply chains have been considered in this research, but certainly, through future work, endogenous risks also will consider in our research. Future research will focus on a micro-level analysis of risk propagation and recovery phenomenon conceptualized and developed in this project. In addition, feedback on the relationship between risk agents and risk events in the dairy supply chain has now been added to the paper, as shown in Figure 17.
Point 5: The end of the paper needs to elaborate on the research implication to theoretical development and managerial/policy practice.
Thank you for the fair point. Based on your point, we have added the research implication to theoretical development and managerial/policy practice to the conclusion section.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
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
- Abstract: The research significance and conclusions of this manuscript are not reflected in this part.
- Introduction: This part uses a large number of languages to describe the research background, showing us a very clear background introduction. However, the innovation points, research significance and scientific problems to be solved as important as the research background are not reflected in the introduction.
- Some important papers in the supply chain field have been missed.
e.g.,
Aung, M. M., & Chang, Y. S. (2014). Traceability in a food supply chain: Safety and quality perspectives. Food control, 39, 172-184.
Govindan, K. (2018). Sustainable consumption and production in the food supply chain: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Production Economics, 195, 419-431.
Kummu, M., De Moel, H., Porkka, M., Siebert, S., Varis, O., & Ward, P. J. (2012). Lost food, wasted resources: Global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Science of the total environment, 438, 477-489.
Li, X., Du, J., & Long, H. (2019). Green development behavior and performance of industrial enterprises based on grounded theory study: evidence from China. Sustainability, 11(15), 4133.
Li, X., Du, J., & Long, H. (2020). Mechanism for green development behavior and performance of industrial enterprises (GDBP-IE) using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(22), 8450.
Long, H., Liu, H., Li, X., & Chen, L. (2020). An evolutionary game theory study for construction and demolition waste recycling considering green development performance under the chinese government’s reward–penalty mechanism. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(17), 6303.
Manders, J. H., Caniëls, M. C., & Paul, W. T. (2016). Exploring supply chain flexibility in a FMCG food supply chain. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 22(3), 181-195.
Yakovleva, N. (2007). Measuring the sustainability of the food supply chain: a case study of the UK. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 9(1), 75-100.
etc.
- Conclusion: There is no summative language, so it is suggested to describe it in points. In addition, this part lacks the discussion of limitations and prospects.
- Several descriptions do not conform to academic standards. For example, take the introduction part “According to [6, 7, 8, 9,10], due to perishability of food within food supply chains (FSCs),…..chains.” as an example, please find and modify them.
- Please note that the details are appropriate: system dynamics has been developed for more than 60 years and is widely used in various fields. I do not think this method needs a long explanation. Therefore, I hope that the author can focus on the combination of system dynamics and dairy supply chain on the basis of a proper explanation of system dynamics.
- In table1, since “author” is used as one of the description points of the table, why only the reference number is represented and the name of the author of the selected study is ignored
- The discussion of the study in this manuscript is not deep and clear enough. It is suggested that the results of the study be compared with other similar studies.
Author Response
Dear Sir/Madam
We would like to also thank both of the reviewers for the important and valuable comments, and suggestions. As you will notice, we have carefully incorporated your comments into our manuscript, and thus considerably revised it. Thus, please note that there has not been any rebuttal on any of the points raised. We have highlighted the revised sections in track changes throughout the paper. We have also provided the following responses to the reviewers' comments:
Response to Reviewer 1
Point 1: Abstract: The research significance and conclusions of this manuscript are not reflected in this part.
Response 1: Firstly, we would like to thank the esteemed reviewer for the valuable suggestions. We have now revised the abstract section to incorporate the suggestion, and highlight the significance of the work.
Point 2: Introduction: This part uses a large number of languages to describe the research background, showing us a very clear background introduction. However, the innovation points, research significance and scientific problems to be solved as important as the research background are not reflected in the introduction.
Response 2: Thank you for your acknowledgement of one of the strength of our work. Nevertheless, as you rightly pointed out the research gap and significance were to be added within the Introduction section. These are not included within the revised version of the work in track changes.
Point 3: Some important papers in the supply chain field have been missed.
e.g.,
Aung, M. M., & Chang, Y. S. (2014). Traceability in a food supply chain: Safety and quality perspectives. Food control, 39, 172-184.
Govindan, K. (2018). Sustainable consumption and production in the food supply chain: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Production Economics, 195, 419-431.
Kummu, M., De Moel, H., Porkka, M., Siebert, S., Varis, O., & Ward, P. J. (2012). Lost food, wasted resources: Global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Science of the total environment, 438, 477-489.
Li, X., Du, J., & Long, H. (2019). Green development behavior and performance of industrial enterprises based on grounded theory study: evidence from China. Sustainability, 11(15), 4133.
Li, X., Du, J., & Long, H. (2020). Mechanism for green development behavior and performance of industrial enterprises (GDBP-IE) using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(22), 8450.
Long, H., Liu, H., Li, X., & Chen, L. (2020). An evolutionary game theory study for construction and demolition waste recycling considering green development performance under the chinese government’s reward–penalty mechanism. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(17), 6303.
Manders, J. H., Caniëls, M. C., & Paul, W. T. (2016). Exploring supply chain flexibility in a FMCG food supply chain. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 22(3), 181-195.
Yakovleva, N. (2007). Measuring the sustainability of the food supply chain: a case study of the UK. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 9(1), 75-100.
etc.
Response 3: Thank you for your comment. We appreciate that most of the above papers are related to the food sustainable supply chain. We attempted to incorporate as many of the suggestions as possible within the in-text-citations and the reference list.
Point 4: Conclusion: There is no summative language, so it is suggested to describe it in points. In addition, this part lacks the discussion of limitations and prospects.
Response 4: Thank you for your feedback. We have now attempted to provide a summary of key points, to provide a summative language style within the Conclusion section. Changes are visible in track changes within the revised version of the work.
Point 5: Several descriptions do not conform to academic standards. For example, take the introduction part “According to [6, 7, 8, 9,10], due to perishability of food within food supply chains (FSCs),…..chains.” as an example, please find and modify them.
Response 5: We have checked the entire manuscript to ensure that statements that do not conform to academic standards are modified. Thank you for highlighting the issue.
Point 6: Please note that the details are appropriate: system dynamics has been developed for more than 60 years and is widely used in various fields. I do not think this method needs a long explanation. Therefore, I hope that the author can focus on the combination of system dynamics and dairy supply chain based on a proper explanation of system dynamics.
Response 6: Thank you. We appreciate this specific feedback; perhaps we had attempted to provide the background information for some of the potential readers who might not be familiar with this established modeling and simulation approach. Nonetheless, we have now incorporated your suggestion.
Point 7: In table1, since “author” is used as one of the description points of the table, why only the reference number is represented and the name of the author of the selected study is ignored.
Response 7: Thank you. This is a fair point. We have now made the necessary changes based on your point regarding Table 1. Authors’ names are included together with the corresponding numbered citation.
Point 8: The discussion of the study in this manuscript is not deep and clear enough. It is suggested that the results of the study be compared with other similar studies.
Response 7: Thank you for your feedback. This research is considered as the fundamental stage for developing a comprehensive SD model for dairy products across the food supply chain, and the main discussion and evaluation process were focused on the earlier stages of the model development. We have also highlighted that the full working Stock Flow Diagram (SFD) is part of the future work, where the simulations will be derived based on sperate scenario for each of identified risk within this research, and the compared to other existing models. We have made the clarification within Section 5, and also the Conclusions section.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper aims to investigate the interactions among various types of risks impacting food supply chain by adopting a system dynamics modelling approach to generate a systemic risk management model.
Several minor mistakes have been detected (e.g. As illustrated in Error! Reference source not found., three following dimensions of risk are considered in this research).
However, model validation and model simulation will definetely improve paper quality.
Author Response
Dear Sir/Madam
We would like to also thank you for the important and valuable comments, and suggestions. As you will notice, we have carefully incorporated your comments into our manuscript, and thus considerably revised it. Thus, please note that there has not been any rebuttal on any of the points raised. We have highlighted the revised sections in track changes throughout the paper. We have also provided the following responses to the reviewers' comments:
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: This paper aims to investigate the interactions among various types of risks impacting food supply chain by adopting a system dynamics modelling approach to generate a systemic risk management model. Several minor mistakes have been detected (e.g. As illustrated in Error! Reference source not found., three following dimensions of risk are considered in this research).
Response 1: Firstly, thank you very much for your constructive feedback. Also thank you for highlighting the typographical errors that existed within the original submission. We have now rectified all the mistakes based on your suggestion. We have also proof-read the entire manuscript. All changes and corrections are visible in track changes within the revised manuscript.
Point 2: However, model validation and model simulation will definitely improve paper quality.
Response 2: Thank you for your feedback. We completely agree with your point here. Nonetheless, considering the scope of the work, within this manuscript we have focused on the risk identification for dairy food supply chains, and attempted to follow the earlier stages of the SD model development. Thus, this work has been focused on the earlier stages and the fundamental phase of adopting SD model for evaluating the risk impacts on food supply chain system functionality. Nevertheless, we have clarified this under Section 5 and the Conclusion section of the revised manuscript, and have highlighted that the next phase of the research entails the development of fully working Stock Flow Model for different risk scenarios, and comparison with existing and state of the art of quantitative results in the field.
Best regards
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Although the authors revised their manuscript, this manuscript still has some flaws.
- The literature review of this manuscript lacks critical and academic logic.
- In addition, the references in this manuscript are relatively old and lack a critical review of the latest relevant research. Therefore, can some of the views in this manuscript represent the latest research?
- This manuscript only briefly reports the results of system dynamics, but lacks a chapter explaining the similarities and differences between this study and other similar studies.
- Therefore, the innovation of this research is not obvious.
In summary, the current literature review, academic logic and innovation of this manuscript need to be updated again.
