A Modified FMEA Approach to Predict Job Shop Disturbance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The current manuscript used combination of vector computing techniques, FMEA and FAHP to provide an analytic disturbance prediction method for job shop with multiple resources and evaluation indexes. The English language level is acceptable. The following revisions should made by the authors.
1. The keywords should be revised, and the authors should choose more relevant word to abstract of the paper.
2. The authors mentioned FAHP in the abstract as one of the methods applied in there provided procedure but there is no illustration about it in the methodology, so more explanation needs for lines 335 and 336 at page 11.
3. Following shortcoming in methodology, the given weights in section 4.2 in page 14 line 422 and 423 are not meaningful. Where is the Fuzziness in the computing these weights?
4. The given weights to experts in section 4.2 in page 14 line 419 are compute based on which objectives or criterion.
5. Some abbreviations are used in the paper without any explanation. For example, SOP in page 6 line 244, MES and EOQ in page 9 lines 277 and 292 respectively.
6. What is the meaning of “plan A” in page 9 line 292?
Author Response
Dear respected reviewer, thank you for your suggestions. For all changes and additions please refer to the revision.
1. The keywords should be revised, and the authors should choose more relevant word to abstract of the paper.
Response 1: The keywords have been revised, please refer to line 18 in the revision.
2. The authors mentioned FAHP in the abstract as one of the methods applied in there provided procedure but there is no illustration about it in the methodology, so more explanation needs for lines 335 and 336 at page 11.
Response 2: The explanation has been added on page 11 and 12.
3. Following shortcoming in methodology, the given weights in section 4.2 in page 14 line 422 and 423 are not meaningful. Where is the Fuzziness in the computing these weights?
Response 3: We have added the explanation of FAHP (suggestion 2). The specific calculation follows the steps on page 11 and 12, and the corresponding fuzzy judgment matrix results can be seen in Appendix C.
4. The given weights to experts in section 4.2 in page 14 line 419 are compute based on which objectives or criterion.
Response 4: The weights of the three experts are obtained by AHP method based on three indicators: position, length of service and education. Please refer to line 440.
5. Some abbreviations are used in the paper without any explanation. For example, SOP in page 6 line 244, MES and EOQ in page 9 lines 277 and 292 respectively.
Response 5: The explanation of SOP was on the section 2.1(line 95), and the other abbreviations e.g. MES and EOQ have been clarified on page 9 (lines 275 and 282).
6. What is the meaning of “plan A” in page 9 line 292?
Response 6: The “plane A” means the plane of the intended projection. We have added the explanation on line 300.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear respected authors,
1. The study's main objectives are reflected in the abstract.
2. Keywords should be selected based on frequent usage in the text. Considering this issue, “lean manufacturing” is not an appropriate keyword, as it has not been used in the text and it is general. It is suggested to choose a more specific keyword instead of it.
3. The statement of the problem is articulated well in the Introduction section. The research gap and the necessity of having this study should be highlighted.
4. The definition of “disturbance” in production systems needs to be supported by at least a reference (Line 43).
5. It seems, “vr” which is defined as an acronym for “risk vector” in line 62, has not been used in the text; just for mentioning in the equations. It is recommended to use the capital letter “RV” if it wants to be used as an acronym, and replace it instead of “risk vector” everywhere, in the text, or just mention it in the introduction the parameters of the equation it is used.
6. In line 53, “people”, and in line 65, “personnel”, and in line 85, both, have been mentioned. It is recommended to unify the used words or phrases in the whole text. The sentence should be rewritten if needed.
7. Reference number [9], has two authors, and should be mentioned as “Sawhney & Subburamam [9]”. Hence, line 52 needs to be modified. Additionally, this study was published in 2010, according to the reference [9] in the reference list. However, in Table 1, it has been mentioned by Sawhney & Subburamam (2009). Please check the published year of the other references mentioned in Table 1, according to the reference list.
8. The first paragraph of the Methodology section, lines 186-190, has been repeated in subsection 3.1., lines 192-196. Additionally, in the Methodology section, the techniques used to propose the new method in this study should be mentioned and should be reflected in the first paragraph as well.
9. As job shop distribution has been defined previously in the Introduction section, it is not necessary to be mentioned again in the Methodology section. In other words, subsection 3.1 does not add any new or deep information to this manuscript. It is recommended to revise it. If some assumptions ate defined in this subsection, it is suggested to make them clear with more explanations.
10. In the sub-section “Prioritization”, some indicators and parameters have been mentioned, that had been discussed and explained in the previous sections. It is suggested to revise this sub-section and prevent the repetition of definitions in the text.
11. Conclusion has been written as a thesis-typed conclusion section. It is suggested to rewrite it. Additionally, there is a need to write about the potential future studies and the limitations of this study in a single paragraph at the end of this section.
Author Response
Dear respected reviewer, thank you for your suggestions. For all changes and additions please refer to the revision.
1. The study's main objectives are reflected in the abstract.
Response 1: This paper mainly proposes an analytic disturbance prediction method for job shop with multiple resources and multiple evaluation indexes. The main objective is to overcome the inefficiency and fuzzy priority of traditional FMEA in job shop. For this purpose, a new mathematical model, FAHP and difference index method are proposed, which can be referred to line 13 to line 15.
2. Keywords should be selected based on frequent usage in the text. Considering this issue, “lean manufacturing” is not an appropriate keyword, as it has not been used in the text and it is general. It is suggested to choose a more specific keyword instead of it.
Response 2: The keywords have been revised, please refer to line 18.
3. The statement of the problem is articulated well in the Introduction section. The research gap and the necessity of having this study should be highlighted.
Response 3: The research gap and the necessity of having this study are mainly in lines 55 to line 61, and the corresponding content has been added.
4. The definition of “disturbance” in production systems needs to be supported by at least a reference (Line 43).
Response 4: A reference has been added (Line 44).
5. It seems, “vr” which is defined as an acronym for “risk vector” in line 62, has not been used in the text; just for mentioning in the equations. It is recommended to use the capital letter “RV” if it wants to be used as an acronym, and replace it instead of “risk vector” everywhere, in the text, or just mention it in the introduction the parameters of the equation it is used.
Response 5: The original acronym has been deleted, and the full name “risk vector” is expressed in the whole paper.
6. In line 53, “people”, and in line 65, “personnel”, and in line 85, both, have been mentioned. It is recommended to unify the used words or phrases in the whole text. The sentence should be rewritten if needed.
Response 6: The words “people” have been replaced to “personnel” in the whole text.
7. Reference number [9], has two authors, and should be mentioned as “Sawhney & Subburamam [9]”. Hence, line 52 needs to be modified. Additionally, this study was published in 2010, according to the reference [9] in the reference list. However, in Table 1, it has been mentioned by Sawhney & Subburamam (2009). Please check the published year of the other references mentioned in Table 1, according to the reference list.
Response 7: The format has been revised to “Sawhney & Subburamam [9]”. The publication years of other references have been checked and revised.
8. The first paragraph of the Methodology section, lines 186-190, has been repeated in subsection 3.1., lines 192-196. Additionally, in the Methodology section, the techniques used to propose the new method in this study should be mentioned and should be reflected in the first paragraph as well.
Response 8: The techniques used have been added in the first paragraph, and the repeated part of subsection 3.1 has been revised in lines 196-201.
9. As job shop distribution has been defined previously in the Introduction section, it is not necessary to be mentioned again in the Methodology section. In other words, subsection 3.1 does not add any new or deep information to this manuscript. It is recommended to revise it. If some assumptions ate defined in this subsection, it is suggested to make them clear with more explanations.
Response 9: Job shop disturbance is generally introduced in the Introduction section. But there is no universal agreement on a definition for the term disturbance in job shop. For this reason, a clear definition is required in Section 3.1, and on this basis, more accurate expert disturbance knowledge can be formed, that is, the part of “Finding problems” in Section 3.2. Because part of Section 3.1 was missing before, it may not be clear in this aspect, and now the relevant part has been added.
10. In the sub-section “Prioritization”, some indicators and parameters have been mentioned, that had been discussed and explained in the previous sections. It is suggested to revise this sub-section and prevent the repetition of definitions in the text.
Response 10: This part has been revised, please refer to page 12.
11. Conclusion has been written as a thesis-typed conclusion section. It is suggested to rewrite it. Additionally, there is a need to write about the potential future studies and the limitations of this study in a single paragraph at the end of this section.
Response 11: The whole conclusion has been rewritten, please refer to pages 16 and 17.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear respected authors,
The methodology, procedures, and steps of the research have been done logically. Thanks for your patience and precision in answering all the raised comments and suggestions. According to the reviewer's point of view, the manuscript's revised version is worth being published in the respected journal of Processes.
