Development of the Circular Product Readiness Method in Circular Design
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
the manuscript is well prepared with extensive data and analysis, however following minor comments needs to be addressed before acceptance.
1. Figures 2 and 3 and others alike needs to be prepared in a different way. The current form of figure looks alike written text.
2. Few font style errors needs to be rectified.
3. Page 4 line 144 and 144 what does it say?
4. Authors needs to emphaize on the pplication part.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the comments and suggestions provided. Below I would like to inform you how we have addressed the comments to improve the quality of the paper.
- Figures 2 and 3 and others alike needs to be prepared in a different way. The current form of figure looks alike written text.
Figures 2 was adjusted to make the text clearer and figure 3 was deleted, instead a reference to Appendix B was used.
- Few font style errors need to be rectified.
We’ve made sure that Palatino Linotype, size 10 is used in the main text, with the correct indent. The tables use Times New Roman, size 9.
- Page 4 line 144 and 144 what does it say?
The broken reference was fixed (line 186):
“Method criteria were compiled to guide the development process. The five main criteria were selected based on the analysis of existing methods and literature review in the background section. The method content needs to meet the requirements from Table 2.”
- Authors needs to emphasize on the application part.
A new paragraph, section 4.5, was added to address the method application (line 332):
“4.5 Application of the method
The recommended way of applying the CPR method is by following a four-step process. The first step is to appoint two employees with prior knowledge and understanding of the circular economy and in-depth knowledge of the product under assessment. Appointing at least two employees, helps in accuracy and effectivity the entry. The second step is to process the scores and translate them into percentages. The third step is to evaluate and interpret the scores by reflecting on the company’s mission and vision for circular product design. The outcome of this evaluation is finding strengths and opportunities for improvement. The fourth step is to adjust the company design roadmap and (re)allocate design resources to fit the changes.”
Kind regards,
The authors
Reviewer 2 Report
While using two verbs next together, in the form of either "Verb1 to Verb2" or "Verb1 Verb2+ing" should be used.
In figure 1 under step 6 : ... instruction video"
At the end of Page 4 reference is not well given there is a warning in text
Page 15 line 382 I there is something missing in sentence, it begins with "s"
How interviews are coded and then analyzed is not certain and also reliability of surveys/questionaries is not given.
At least one sentence should be added to conclusions on results of comparison of two companies.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the comments and suggestions provided. Below I would like to inform you how we have addressed the comments to improve the quality of the paper.
- While using two verbs next together, in the form of either "Verb1 to Verb2" or "Verb1 Verb2+ing" should be used.
The manuscript was reread for inconsistencies in verb use and corrections were made where needed.
- In figure 1 under step 6 : ... instruction video"
The figure was adjusted to correct the misspelt word.
- At the end of Page 4 reference is not well given there is a warning in text
The broken reference was fixed (line 186):
“Method criteria were compiled to guide the development process. The five main criteria were selected based on the analysis of existing methods and literature review in the background section. The method content needs to meet the requirements from Table 2.”
- Page 15 line 382 I there is something missing in sentence, it begins with "s"
The incorrect break in the sentence was corrected (Line 490):
“The outcomes are accessible to the wider design team as well as to other company divisions; this can help inform the expertise areas, like those of circular supply chains and circular business models, to determine shared priorities and interlinkages.”
- How interviews are coded and then analyzed is not certain and also reliability of surveys/questionnaires is not given.
The analysis of the interviews was further specified in lines 232-234:
"An online whiteboard containing the full list of questions was used to structure the interview. During the interviews, notes were added to the whiteboard to capture the re-marks to specific questions. Based on an analysis of the notes, adaptations were made to the assessment questions and recommendations were made for further work."
- At least one sentence should be added to conclusions on results of comparison of two companies.
A comparison of the results was added to the evaluation section (5), in lines 356 – 384:
“The application of the method at two different companies provided several useful insights. Gorenje scores 75% or higher for most of the design indicators and receives its highest scores for theme 1 ‘Circular strategy’. Software support (2.5) scores just below 70%, as it is planned to support (at least) a single use-cycle. Warranty (4.1) receives a score of 50% since the average warranty period of all life-cycles is significantly below that of the first use-cycle. This would only be relevant in the case of selling the product. Disassembly (6.1) and Refurbishment (6.2) are considered out of scope, since remanufacturing is the future aim for Gorenje. Product retrieval (5.2) is out of scope, as the products are offered through a service and are not sold. The scores indicate in what areas the company excels, but also points out opportunities for improvement of the circularity of their design. The main areas of improvement are material selection, upgradability, and software support. The indicators from the Recoverability theme (6) offer room for improvement once the company starts to adopt asset recovery.
Bosch received high scores on all design indicators that fall within the company’s power to influence. Materials (2.1) and Recycling (6.4) are the only indicators that score below 90%. Standardization (2.3) and Software support (2.5) are marked out of scope, since most of the standardization is regulated by law and the product does not make use of software. The Use efficiency (3.2) received a score of 67%, as design of this product relies on other parts/ products for the use efficiency of its consumables. The scores reflect the fact that the product suitability for recovery operations from a design point-of-view.”
Kind regards,
The authors
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is interesting for its contribution as an indicator for evaluating the design of circular products in which it also uses the semantics of the product, even so, its exposition should be improved in order to achieve a better understanding.
Regarding the references, the text contains a couple of errors to be corrected where the references do not appear (lines 144 and 233). In addition, lines 381 and 382 which are cut, I understand that they will be corrected in the editing of the text.
In chapter 3, research design, it clarifies in detail the number of topics, the duration of the sessions, etc., but the number of experts consulted is not contemplated, it is necessary to go to appendix A to know it, in my opinion it should also be included in the text. In the same way that in chapter 4, line 199, ambiguous expression is used to define the rounds of iterations.
In relation to the figures, Figure 2 would be improved by eliminating the highlighted text, gaining clarity in its exposition.
Figure 3 would improve if it became a table instead of a figure or even if it were eliminated as it is included in the appropriate appendix.
But the most important of all is Figure 5, it is the key figure of the paper and is not appropriate for a written communication, the letters are too small, it is very far from where it is mentioned in the text and undoubtedly needs to be improved so that the reader can really know the results obtained in the research.
Finally, in the conclusions section, it indicates that it is not finished, to which I would add the suggestion to increase the number of experts in the subsequent validations, including experts from the companies themselves.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the comments and suggestions provided. Below I would like to inform you how we have addressed the comments to improve the quality of the paper.
- The paper is interesting for its contribution as an indicator for evaluating the design of circular products in which it also uses the semantics of the product, even so, its exposition should be improved in order to achieve a better understanding.
The meaning of ‘its exposition should be improved in order to achieve a better understanding’ is not entirely clear to us. We assume it refers to product semantics. To avoid misunderstanding, we have adapted the text at all occurrences to read ‘product design semantics’ and at p. 2, line 100 we have expended the text with ‘To do this, the design terminology of the professional language or jargon of designers can be used.’ to better clarify what is meant with design semantics.
- Regarding the references, the text contains a couple of errors to be corrected where the references do not appear (lines 144 and 233). In addition, lines 381 and 382 which are cut, I understand that they will be corrected in the editing of the text.
The broken reference was fixed (line 186):
“Method criteria were compiled to guide the development process. The five main criteria were selected based on the analysis of existing methods and literature review in the background section. The method content needs to meet the requirements from Table 2.”
The incorrect break in the sentence was corrected (Line 490):
“The outcomes are accessible to the wider design team as well as to other company divisions; this can help inform the expertise areas, like those of circular supply chains and circular business models, to determine shared priorities and interlinkages.”
- In chapter 3, research design, it clarifies in detail the number of topics, the duration of the sessions, etc., but the number of experts consulted is not contemplated, it is necessary to go to appendix A to know it, in my opinion it should also be included in the text. In the same way that in chapter 4, line 199, ambiguous expression is used to define the rounds of iterations.
We’ve added the number of experts involved in this study (Line 199):
“A total of 11 experts were consulted during the sessions.”
And we’ve added and estimate of about 20 rounds of design iterations (Line 248):
“The final set of themes and indicators was obtained through about 20 rounds of design iterations, the knowledge coproduction sessions, and literature review.”
- In relation to the figures, Figure 2 would be improved by eliminating the highlighted text, gaining clarity in its exposition.
The highlights were removed from the text in Figure 2.
- Figure 3 would improve if it became a table instead of a figure or even if it were eliminated as it is included in the appropriate appendix.
Figure 3 was eliminated and a reference to the appendix (B) was added.
- But the most important of all is Figure 5, it is the key figure of the paper and is not appropriate for a written communication, the letters are too small, it is very far from where it is mentioned in the text and undoubtedly needs to be improved so that the reader can really know the results obtained in the research.
Figure 5 was adjusted to make the text bigger and improve readability.
- Finally, in the conclusions section, it indicates that it is not finished, to which I would add the suggestion to increase the number of experts in the subsequent validations, including experts from the companies themselves.
We’ve added a sentence in the conclusion section, which proposes further validation with both academic and industry experts (Line 504-505):
“In addition, further validation with experts from both academia and industry, followed by design iterations, can strengthen its transversality across industries.”
Kind regards,
The authors
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper has improved quite a bit with the improvements included even so, Figure 5 could be improved.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the remark. The readability of the text in figure 5 was improved though an iteration of its design and lay-out.
