Towards Assessing the Economic Sustainability of Reconfigurable Modularization in Semi-Automatic Assembly Systems: A System Dynamics Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have several suggestions. 1) The introduction is too short and brief. I suggest elaborately explaining the novelties, research questions, and aims of this work. How does this study differ from past works? 2) The results should be better explained and compared with prior works. In the current version, the authors just report the findings. 3) The policy implications are weak and should be modified from aspects of various stakeholders. 4) The conclusions and limitations are also presented weakly and should be modified. 5) The literature review should be updated by adding more recently published works in 2022 and 2023. Meantime, the authors should review at least 50-60 articles.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It's good.

Author Response

We are very grateful for the valuable review identifying potential improvements to our manuscript.

We have reworked the entire manuscript to enhance the presentation of the research novelties, research questions and aims of the work. We have also clarified how this work distinguishes from past approaches to a larger degree. At the core of our findings is the presented conceptual system dynamics model, we hope the refined presentation makes clear this is our ambition with the manuscript is to showcase a shift in how to enhance economic sustainability using reconfigurable solutions in the manufacturing industry. We have added some experiments to illustrate the value of the approach to various stakeholders within the research community and for managerial use. By making the research questions clearer we now also can close the manuscript by indicating attaining the research questions. Considering the literature review, we need to underline this is not a systematic literature review, however, we have included recent research on the topic of the economics of reconfigurable manufacturing systems based on screening 90 relevant papers we found only a limited few to include in our paper.

We have used track changes to make it easy to follow the applied changes. We hope the applied changes will be satisfying to the reviewer.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the paper is interesting but the way in which it is presented is unacceptable. The paper has to be completely rewritten. There are many substantive errors or sentences that are difficult to understand or do not add much to the work. 

Below are some examples.

The goal of the paper is not clear. What does it mean that “… the purpose of this paper is: to investigate the economic rationale for modularization in semi-automatic assembly systems in the light of a system dynamics model.”? “in the light of”?

“We examine two scenarios to contrast implementing either dedicated or modular production system designs, based on their changability levels” – “contrast”?

 

“…our primary objective was to investigate how production systems could be better adapted to the challenges posed by shorter product life cycles” - “shorter product life cycles”?

The work methodology is not clear. “we embarked on a 13-month journey with two of the companies to explore and create the support tool”. What tool are the authors writing about?

“To translate the principles underpinning the economic rationale and support the practical implementation, we developed a conceptual system dynamics model derived from a synthesis of empirical data collected across all four cases.” – “To translate the principles underpinning the economic rationale”? What empirical data the authors are writing about. What are the input data to the model? 

“Our general illustrative case results indicate a longer time horizon is required to economically motivate investments” – “longer time horizon” what the authors mean by longer?

Fig. 1.  Among aspects included in the model are “product introduction” – what does it mean?

Moreover, abbreviations should be explained before the appear in the text.

The authors must be more precise, create more carefully the sentences and the flow of the presentation starting from better presentation of the goal of the work, then methodology of the model creation (step by step), next input data, applied formulas, output data, plan of experiment and results of the experiments. Finally, discussion and conclusions. 

In this way, the authors will be able to build a very valuable paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Typos

Author Response

We are grateful for the valuable review identifying potential improvements to our manuscript.

We have reworked the entire manuscript to enhance the presentation. We especially thank the reviewer for pointing out language errors and we have reduced the lengthy sentences to make the manuscript readable. We have also improved the presentation of research novelties, research questions and aims of the work. We have also clarified how this work distinguishes from past approaches to a larger degree. At the core of our findings is the presented conceptual system dynamics model, we hope the refined presentation makes clear this is our ambition with the manuscript is to showcase a shift in how to enhance economic sustainability using reconfigurable solutions in the manufacturing industry. We have added some experiments to illustrate the value of the approach to various stakeholders within the research community and for managerial use. By making the research questions clearer we now also can close the manuscript by indicating attaining the research questions. Considering the literature review, we need to underline this is not a systematic literature review, however, we have included recent research on the topic of the economics of reconfigurable manufacturing systems based on screening 90 relevant papers we found only a limited few to include in our paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors In the introduction, it is necessary to point out the research gap and formulate
hypotheses or a research question.

In Chapter 3, prepare a schematic representation of the research process.
Describe the economic method in more detail.

In the conclusion, answer the research question posed. You can also
make a comparison with similar research. It is necessary to explore
the possibilities of future research.

 

Author Response

Thank you for the valuable review to enhance our manuscript. Based on this review and the other reviews we have made considerable improvements to the paper.

We have reworked the entire manuscript to enhance the presentation of the research novelties, research questions and aims of the work. We have also clarified how this work distinguishes from past approaches to a larger degree. At the core of our findings is the presented conceptual system dynamics model, we hope the refined presentation makes clear this is our ambition with the manuscript is to showcase a shift in how to enhance economic sustainability using reconfigurable solutions in the manufacturing industry. We have added some experiments to illustrate the value of the approach to various stakeholders within the research community and for managerial use. By making the research questions clearer we now also can close the manuscript by indicating attaining the research questions. Considering the literature review, we need to underline this is not a systematic literature review, however, we have included recent research on the topic of economics of reconfigurable manufacturing systems based on screening 90 relevant papers we found only a limited few to include in our paper.

We have used track changes to make it easy to follow the applied changes. We hope the applied changes will be satisfying to the reviewer.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is improved, however still significant information is missing: input data, applied formulas, output data, plan of experiment and results of the experiments.

The authors may summarize input data in a table remembering about the units.

All formulas used in the Vensim model should be presented. Presentation in supplementary materials the Vensim model as .mdl file is a good idea, nevertheless, the formulas used should be presented in the publication.

Output data should be summarized.

Plan of experiment should be presented. How the input data was changed and what values were obtained at the output? Of course, the presentation of output data in graphs is correct, but is should be emphasized that these are output data.

Moreover, while describing the methodology, it is not enough to refer works that present used methods ([35] and [13]). It is needed to present sufficient information so the readers do not have to read the source to understand the methodology.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are still minor errors in the text. English needs to be improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for your detailed feedback and suggestions for improving our manuscript. We have carefully considered your comments and have made the following revisions:

Language and Clarity: We have addressed minor language errors and improved the overall quality of English throughout the manuscript. Parts of the methodology that were previously unclear have been rewritten for better clarity. Specifically, we included a figure of the research approach and made necessary clarifications related to previous research as pointed out.

We have summarized the input data for the experiments in a table, ensuring clarity.

We have compiled an appendix with all model equations for a comprehensive reference.

Output Data: Besides using graphs to present our results the main output results of the experiments are now clearly summarized.

Plan of Experiment: We have expanded the section on the plan of experiments. This includes detailed descriptions of how the input data was varied and summarizing the corresponding output values in a table.

We believe these revisions address all the points raised and significantly improve the manuscript's clarity and comprehensiveness. Thank you for your valuable input, which has been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our work.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been significantly improved and presents interesting analyses.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the acknowledgements of the manuscript's merits. We appreciate your guidance during the revision process.

Best regards,

Gary & Simon