Decision Making in Service Shops Supported by Mining Enterprise Resource Planning Data^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the authors apply straightforward data mining techniques to investigate ERP data collected from 27 service shops over 35 months.  Their analysis employs detailed billing records and monthly cash flow data to deliver critical insights into business performance for service shop managers.  Additionally, their findings suggest promising new directions for future research into business analytics and intelligence processes. However, there are some problems that the authors should address before the paper can be accepted for possible publication in Sci. 

The paper lacks comparative analysis with other methods. It is suggested that the author should compare the results with those of other similar methods to analyze the effectiveness of the results obtained in this paper. At the same time, the standardization of this paper needs to be improved. For example, the figure on page 2 has no serial number and title, and it is exactly the same as the following Figure 1.  I think there is something wrong with figures and their meanings. At the same time, there are several other figures that also have this similar problem.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English seems to be OK in general, but minor revision is necessary for further improvement.

Author Response

Many thanks for your comments. We have integrated all of the comments into the markup attached.

All the best

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments:

 ·        The abstract and introduction do not clearly articulate the paper's main contribution. I would like the authors to clarify this and revise the abstract and introduction to convey this. In my view, the paper explores whether the decision-making support management method is a tool for planning, control, and performance in service shop operations management.

 ·        On pages 2 and 3, 2 tables are presented that contain a language other than English and should be removed or translated.

 ·        There are parts of the paper that can be improved. Also, there are a few typos, grammar mistakes, and language errors throughout the paper. The paper would be benefited from a proof-reading.

 ·        The authors should be better motivated. In addition, the literature review is limited. I recommend the authors extend the literature review. The authors should enrich the literature review with relevant papers such as Cuyvers et al. 1995) and Konstantakopoulou and Tsionas (2024).

 ·        The methodology followed by the article is lacking. While the results are analyzed thoroughly, the methodology is not analyzed in sufficient detail. I suggest that the methodology and its stages be analyzed in detail. There should be a connection between the stages of the methodology and the results.

 ·        Finally, the results are so detailed that the reader loses sight of the question and the article's conclusions.

References

Cuyvers, L., De Pelsmacker P., Rayp G., Roozen, I.T.M. (1995) A decision support model for the planning and assessment of export promotion activities by government export promotion institutions: the Belgian case. Int J Res Mark 12(2):173–186

 

Konstantakopoulou, I., Tsionas, M. Identifying Export Opportunities: Empirical Evidence from the Southern Euro Area Countries. Open Econ Rev 35, 41–70 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11079-023-09715-8

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Extensive editing of English language required.

Author Response

Many thanks for your comments. We have integrated all of the comments into the markup attached.

All the best

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you for your contribution.

The topic is quite relevant and interesting, I highlight some comments:

Figure 1 is not well framed, it should appear after line 43 and is appearing duplicated.

From line 55 to 59, the relevance of the management accountant should be explained based on literature.

The first research question should end with ".

Line 111 Shi & Wang - put Shi and Wang.

In the methodology, a theory should be used to compare the results. This theory should be explained in the literature set out in the methodology and discussed in the results.

In the results, figure 2 appears cut and duplicated, place it so that it is visible in its entirety.

Figure 3 appears underlined in yellow and should be removed, if relevant, stating it in the discussion of the results is sufficient. Furthermore, it is not a figure, it is a table and appears duplicated.

Figure 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 duplicates.

When presenting the results, a theory should be discussed.

Author contributions do not appear completed.

The limitations of the study must be deepened.

Author Response

Many thanks for your comments. We have integrated all of the comments into the markup attached.

All the best

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper in this version is improved.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Moderate editing of English language required.