A Rapid Improvement Process through “Quick-Win” Lean Tools: A Case Study

Reviewer 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Responses of Authors

The article proposes the presentation of the results of the application of human resource management tools using Lean Leadership (LL). The authors studied which LL tools are capable of making a quick impact on the company where the study was applied.

Thanks

Based in the paper Rodrigues, J., Sá, J. C. V. D., Ferreira, L. P., Silva, F., & Santos, G. (2019). Lean Management “Quick-Wins”: Results of Implementation. A Case Study. Quality Innovation Prosperity, 23(3), 3. has a significant amount of content equal to the article being presented here. Observe pages 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10 have equal sentences between submitted paper and the other. For the final version the authors need to avoid the same sentences even being the same author. 

No time to improve.

To be improved

1. Introduction

The introduction is short and needs to be rewritten in order to describe the main contribution of the paper. It is important to present basic concepts in order to introduce the main contributions.

Done

It was improved

Verify the use of double L of "Lean/Lean".

Done.

Verify the citation format of the System journal. Use [number].

Not time to change.

To bem improved

As it was used LT and LL, it is appropriate to use LT and LL on the rest of the paper. E.g., "Implementing Lean Leadership in association with Lean Tools"  to "Implementing LL in association with LT".

Done.

Correction to the text of the article was made.

In the text "through Lean Leadership (LL) " the definition of LL is repeated again.

Done.

Correction to the text of the article was made.

2. Literature revision  

  Description of each quality tool is brief and superficial. Is it possible to provide a deep revision about that?  (This comment is just a suggestion for revision)    

Done

Thanks for the suggestion

At section 3. Methodology,

It is informed in the first sentence It was consulted several papers from Dombrowski and Mielke (2014). However, this reference is old. Was it consulted paper from 2014 to now? I suggest checking the other newest papers until 2020

Done

 .   At part where is used "six-point “Likert”" provide a citation for Likert work. E.g., R. Likert, “A technique for the measurement of attitudes,” Arch. Of Psych., 1932

Done

Subsection 3.2 and 3.3 can be reduced to only one. Before describing each item, it is possible to present the main target of dimension.  

Done

Scenario where the work was proposed must be very well described.

Done

FIgure1 was not cited in the text.

Done

The table 1 is misunderstanding, (what is CNC, Quantity, diameter)).

Done

What information this table helps better understanding the layout scenario.

Done

Still, at figure 1: What is 1.4, 1.3, 2.3, 4.2, and among others.  

Done

The text "shown in figure 1, resulted in a “Good” score (68%)." in fact is Figure 2, not 1. Typing error. Please, check it.  

Done

At figures 2 and 3 sounds to be irrelevant and doesn't bring any important information due to each item having itself importance.   

Done

This is the initial perception of all dimensions, and figure 3 means the same perspective but oriented by cell, that is, the means of perceptions per cell

At 4. results

In figure 4, how can the author explain why the level of Mechanics is lower than other parts of the process?  

Done

It is people's initial perception. Some new machines were purchased and people were aware of the old machines, which were below the expectations of employees. Hence the rise in value.

4.3 section. Table/figure must be formatted for correct table format, where is necessary insert caption for each one.  

Done

In the sentence "(where the correlation of +1 is very strong, and a 476 value of −1 corresponds to a very weak correlation)", there is a mistake about the basic concept of Spearman Coefficient. If coefficient is close or equal +1, both variables are positively correlated. If coefficient is close or equal to -1, then variables are inversely correlated. Variables are just not correlated if coefficient is equal to 0 or nearby.  

Done (removed)

Coefficient of Spearmen must be better defined.

Done (removed)

Why use this kind of comparison? Correlation is used when the researcher must identify if two variables have the same behavior.

Done (removed)

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Responses of authors

The paper presents very interesting study on selected Lean Management tools application in Portuguese SME.

Thanks

Within the research several aspects were taken into account and the results proved that using Lean tools might have a great impact on the manufacturing processes, employees and enterprise in general. The selected objectives, methodology and research results are well described.

Thanks

It would be very interesting to see how the study would look like in some longer period of time, including implementation of more Lean tools – especially those devoted strictly to the manufacturing.

Done

Thanks for your suggestion, but the purpose of this paper, it was studying the best lean tools that have a rapid improvement in the company. For this it is “quick –win”. The suggestion for a longer period of time, it cannot be applied in this paper, because change its propose. But is a very good idea for develop another paper.

As said that Cell 4 showed a lower value due to the diversity of works that have centers and thus require new programming at the beginning of the research, it is a pitty that authors have not considered selecting SMED method to be introduced and tested.

Done

Your observation is true, and your suggestion makes sense. But SMED was not applied, because we were in the development phase of the CNC's program (FANUC). SMED would be applied in the next step, however this article does not cover this step.

I recommend the article to be published. However, before accepting the paper, some spellcheck and editing issues should be corrected (especially multiple spacing between words doesn’t look good). Also numbering in chapter 4.1 should be corrected.

Done

Many thanks for you note. We correct the text of the paper and the chapter numbering after chapter 4.1.

Reviewer 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Response of authors

The authors present an interesting study on the change produced in the human resources management tool usingLean Leadershi. It is a good proposal, but the paper has a number of important technical shortcomings.

Thanks

The study does not show the total number of surveys conducted (Except in the abstract which indicates in line 12 that there are 2 surveys). This point is of great importance, as it gives consistency to the results. If it is only two surveys, the study has no validity. And if there are more than two surveys, their number must be indicated.

Done

Many thanks for your suggestion. We agree with you because this information is very important for the paper. The survey was carried out twice, before and after the improvements introduced with lean tools, and in each survey 17 workers were surveyed. We improve this information in the article, in 3.1.

When using a Linkert scale it is necessary to perform a Questionnaire Validation . At this stage, the aim is to capture the information obtained through the questionnaires and to validate the internal consistency or reliability of the questionnaire. To this end, the Cronbach's Alpha Index (Cronbach, 1951) should be used, considering a minimum cutoff value of 0.7 (Nunnaly, 1978; Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994; Rexhausen et al. 2012).

Done

Thank you very much for your suggestion, which is very important for our article. Cronbach's Alpha calculation and analysis was included in 4.5.

It is important that the authors clearly describe what contribution this paper makes to improving knowledge in the field of Lean. The paper does not describe the importance of the study. It simply shows the improvement when applying Lean tools. But that is not enough.

Done

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We agree with your observation because this information is not clear in our article.

There are hundreds of articles that address the implementation of lean tools in organizations, and measure the results obtained in the various processes / departments. But this article aims to identify which are the lean tools, which allow companies to obtain benefits / gains quickly. This is the great contribution of this article to the scientific community and to companies. No bibliographic research found any article that studied this matter.

This is information that companies need to know quickly, because they have an urgent need to obtain improvements / gains in their processes / activities. This information will be included in the " Abstrac" and "Introduction" of the article.

Reviewer 1

Thank you so much for attending to the previous recommendations

Thanks

The manuscript has a significant impact in the research area and can be accepted to publish.

Thanks

I just suggest a chancing description of the caption of Figure 1. Not only "layout”

Done

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you very much for attending to my suggestions. In my opinion, I think you have fulfilled all the suggestions.

Thanks

The result shows a good example of the development of a case study. The results are very interesting.

Thanks

I have found some very simple shortcomings:
- Figure 1: Poor image quality and with words in Portuguese or Spanish.

Done

Figure 1 has been replaced by another with more resolution

- In Table 1 there is a column called "Max diameter of machining". Why does this column exist? Is the information used in the paper?

Done

The informacion of this column was inserted in the texto.