Novel Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Method for Production Scheduling Based on Group AHP and Cloud Model Enhanced TOPSIS

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors presented an MCGDM method based on group decision making principles, cloud model theory and TOPSIS method to prioritize alternative production scheduling schemes. 

The work was well organized with sufficient introduction of approach used and demonstration of practicability with a case study.

There are some grammatical issues that has to be addressed such as Page 1 - line 15 (spacing), Page 5, lines 205 and 207, etc

The use of the English language was good. A few grammatical errors to be addressed

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript “Novel Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Method for Production Scheduling Based on Group AHP and Cloud Model Enhanced TOPSIS”. The manuscript proposes an optimal scheduling method for the iron and steel field. I see several positive and negative points in the research, and these negative points are listed below, with the aim of promoting the maturity of the manuscript and increasing its impact and audience.

Introduction: the first three paragraphs are ad hoc. No literature was presented to support the arguments presented in these paragraphs. The fourth paragraph reviews studies that adopt MCDM methods in the optimal scheduling field. The fifth paragraph presents some examples of application of MCDM methods. The sixth paragraph presents the justifications for the research. The arguments presented in this paragraph are not solid. The number of studies that apply MCDM methods in production scheduling is quite significant [1-5]. Solving an optimal scheduling problem in the iron and steel field is not sufficient justification to characterize the research as innovative. The assertion about the lack of research that deals with the processing of heterogeneous data is not correct, as shown [6,7]. Finally, many works consider group decision making in scheduling problems [8,9]. The seventh paragraph presents the objective of the research. The novelties declared by the authors regarding the proposed method are everywhere. It is difficult to grasp what the real innovation of this paper is. The research as it is presented is a case study. The authors must problematize the research based on the decision-making literature to provide greater clarity on the existing gaps and problems that are being overcome by the proposed method. Another path is to reformulate the introduction, correcting the initial arguments, and presenting the contributions of the case study to optimal scheduling problem in the iron and steel field.

1.     Development and selection of hybrid dispatching rule for dynamic job shop scheduling using multi-criteria decision making analysis (MCDMA)

2.     An integrated approach to joint production planning and reliability-based multi-level preventive maintenance scheduling optimisation for a deteriorating system considering due-date satisfaction.

3.     A job-shop scheduling decision-making model for sustainable production planning with power constraint

4.     Multi-criteria optimization in operations scheduling applying selected priority rules.

5.     Hybrid optimization of production scheduling and maintenance using mathematical programming and NSGA-II meta-heuristic method.

6.     A dispatching-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS model for scheduling flexible job-shop systems in industry 4.0 context

7.     Dispatching algorithm for production programming of flexible job-shop systems in the smart factory industry

8.     Doodle around the world: Online scheduling behavior reflects cultural differences in time perception and group decision-making

9.     A new combination of multi-mode resource-constrained project scheduling and group decision-making process with interval-fuzzy information

Minor issues:

The title suggests that the method has application for Production Scheduling. Can't the method be applied to solve other problems?

The sentence in line 95 is truncated.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper proposes a new novel criteria group decision-making method for the decision of ranking and selection of production scheduling schemes. It is an interesting research topic in the field of production scheduling. The novelty and theoretical contribution are suitable to be considered for publication in the Journal of Processes. The reviewer suggests a minor revision considering the following two suggestions.

(1) The application case study should give more detailed information about the flexible job shop scheduling problems. The reviewer suggested that the authors provide the scheduling problem instances and the adopted methods to obtain the scheduling schemes, to help the readers understand the actual characteristics of each scheduling scheme. 

(2) In the discussion section, there are 8 advantages of the proposed method are summarized. It is suggested that the author further summarize the advantages of the method, for example, summarizing 3-5 advantages will focus on the characteristics of the essence of the method better. Otherwise, the reviewer will feel that the experiment part is sufficient to support the listed advantages.

The English Language is good.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for making the suggested adjustments. This version of the manuscript is more objective and more straightforward. I want to suggest a few minor improvements to the paper to increase its audience and impact.

Section 2.3. Conversion of Heterogeneous Data, line 295. I expected to find two or three sentences about evaluation formats, as well as more details about the homogenization of heterogeneous information (evaluations) [1-5]:

1. Group decision making with heterogeneous preference structures: An automatic mechanism to support consensus reaching

2. Integrating multiplicative preference relations in a multipurpose decision-making model based on fuzzy preference relations

3. Multimethod to prioritize projects evaluated in different formats

4. Multiperson decision-making based on multiplicative preference relations.

5. Multiple-attribute group decision making with different formats of preference information on attributes

 Please provide basic notions about these topics.

Line 467. Ok, consider the consistency of the matrices. This measure avoids intransitive evaluations. However, this approach does not provide a measure of the uncertainty associated with the weights resulting from the assessments. Please consider including the degree of consensus among experts as a limitation of the research and a suggestion for future research. These measures help to assess how compatible the weights used are with individual opinions and indicate the uncertainty associated with group weights [6-8].

6. A flexible consensus scheme for multicriteria group decision making under linguistic assessments.

7. A review of soft consensus models in a fuzzy environment

8. Consensus-Based Sub-Indicator Weighting Approach: Constructing Composite Indicators Compatible with Expert Opinion.

Line 777. What type of mixed weighting are you suggesting using in future research? Approaches that mix objectively and subjectively obtained weights [9,10]. Or weighting approaches that define weights through a combined process, considering expert opinion in objectively defining weights [11]? Would it be both approaches? Please make this point clearer in the text.

9. Lee, C. M., & Chou, H. H. (2018). Green growth in Taiwan—An application of the oecd green growth monitoring indicators. The Singapore Economic Review, 63(02), 249-274.

10. Xu, Q., Zhang, Y. B., Zhang, J., & Lv, X. G. (2015). Improved TOPSIS model and its application in the evaluation of NCAA basketball coaches. Modern Applied Science, 9(2), 259.

11. Goal-based participatory weighting scheme: Balancing objectivity and subjectivity in the construction of composite indicators.

Minor errors:

Please review citations and references. Reference 36 does not appear in the text.

Best regards,

The reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf