The Development of an Excellence Model Integrating the Shingo Model and Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. A total of 125 publications from Web of Science  database are used to do the bibliometric analysis, where key words are "lean 296 methodology" or "lean manufacturing" or "lean tools", "six sigma" or "DMAIC", "lean six 297 sigma", "sustainability" or "Shingo’s model" or “excellence models”. This is a well-written paper. 

2. The reference format is not consistent.

For example:

D. L. Hardy, S. Kundu, and M. Latif, “Productivity and process performance in a manual trimming cell exploiting Lean Six Sigma (LSS) DMAIC - a case study in laminated panel production,” Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag., vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 1861–1879, 2021, doi: 10.1108/IJQRM-07-2020-0242. 917 N. Verma, V. Sharma, and M. A. Badar, “Entropy-Based Lean, Energy and Six Sigma Approach to Achieve Sustainability in Manufacturing System,” Arab. J. Sci. Eng., vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 8105–8117, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s13369-021-05826-x.

These two references' paper title are not consistent.

3. Since paper's title is "Development of an excellence model integrating Shingo model". A case study should be provided.

4. I recommend it for publication with minor changes.

Author Response

Response to the Editor and Reviewers

Paper sustainability-1795883

"Development of an excellence model integrating Shingo model and sustainability"

Dear Editor,

The authors would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for taking the time to review this paper and provide positive feedback, useful suggestions and valuable criticisms. We have carefully considered reviewer’s comments and believe the paper has been deeply improved.

Below you can find the questions put by the reviewers as well as our responses. We also presented a full revised version of the paper, where we try to include all the suggestions made by the reviewers. However, due to contradictory ideas among reviewers, it was not always possible to fully address their suggestions and comments.

 

Reviewer #1
Comment/Suggestion	Action done
1. A total of 125 publications from Web of Science  database are used to do the bibliometric analysis, where key words are "lean 296 methodology" or "lean manufacturing" or "lean tools", "six sigma" or "DMAIC", "lean six 297 sigma", "sustainability" or "Shingo’s model" or “excellence models”. This is a well-written paper	Thank you so much for your analysis and kind words.
2. The reference format is not consistent. For example: D. L. Hardy, S. Kundu, and M. Latif, “Productivity and process performance in a manual trimming cell exploiting Lean Six Sigma (LSS) DMAIC - a case study in laminated panel production,” Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag., vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 1861–1879, 2021, doi: 10.1108/IJQRM-07-2020-0242. 917 N. Verma, V. Sharma, and M. A. Badar, “Entropy-Based Lean, Energy and Six Sigma Approach to Achieve Sustainability in Manufacturing System,” Arab. J. Sci. Eng., vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 8105–8117, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s13369-021-05826-x. These two references' paper title are not consistent.	Thank you for your observation. Inconsistency in the references has been corrected.
3. Since paper's title is "Development of an excellence model integrating Shingo model". A case study should be provided.	Thank you for your observation. Indeed, a new model has been developed based on a extensive Literature Review. No case study has been performed to validate the model. The model has born based on Table 5. Just a theoretical approach has been carried out.
4. I recommend it for publication with minor changes.	Thank you for your kind recommendation.

 

 

All manuscript was deeply revised in terms of misspellings and coherence, trying to avoid mistakes.

The authors would like to thanks once again all the valuable contributions given by the Editor and Reviewers, allowing the paper improvement.

We are looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you so much for your attention.

 

Kind regards,

José Carlos Sá

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Sustainability and its 3 dimension of environmental, economic, and social are very significant to the study, they were emphasised in the topic and conclusion of the paper, but there wasn't adequate revision of literature in respect of it. 

The research methodology did not explicitly describe the methods used in identifying and selecting the items presented in the network visualisation map (Fig 7).  In addition, it is not clear whether the network visualisation map is the authors' construction or adopted from literature. 

In Table 4, the evaluation of the impact on the tools listed could have been easier to verify by audience, if the literature reference is attached to the effects listed in the second column of the table. 

Generally, the structure of the paper and the findings were not convincing in respect of the originality of the contents of the paper. Similar review papers can be identified in peer reviewed journals. In addition, the contents are also mostly an assembly of what was already discovered in the cited research work. 

The candidate could have developed a more rigorous concept/ theory based on the findings of the critical review conducted.  

Author Response

Response to the Editor and Reviewers

Paper sustainability-1795883

"Development of an excellence model integrating Shingo model and sustainability"

Dear Editor,

The authors would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for taking the time to review this paper and provide positive feedback, useful suggestions and valuable criticisms. We have carefully considered reviewer’s comments and believe the paper has been deeply improved.

Below you can find the questions put by the reviewers as well as our responses. We also presented a full revised version of the paper, where we try to include all the suggestions made by the reviewers. However, due to contradictory ideas among reviewers, it was not always possible to fully address their suggestions and comments.

 

Reviewer #2
Comment/Suggestion	Action done
Sustainability and its 3 dimension of environmental, economic, and social are very significant to the study, they were emphasised in the topic and conclusion of the paper, but there wasn't adequate revision of literature in respect of it.	Thank you so much for your comment. Indeed, we has put our focus on Lean Six-Sigma, not in Sustainability. This, it seems natural that Literature Review is poor. Just a small review has been made regarding about the relation Shingo’s model – Sustainability, as shown in Figure 3, right column. Thus, the main purpose wasn’t to focus just on this topic. Hope you understand.
The research methodology did not explicitly describe the methods used in identifying and selecting the items presented in the network visualisation map (Fig 7).  In addition, it is not clear whether the network visualisation map is the authors' construction or adopted from literature.	Thank you for your comment. Figure 7 has been developed by Authors based on VosViewer software. Moreover, the Strategy and Methodology used to develop this work is clearly described in Section 3, explaining the databases used, as well as the keyworks combinations and so on. This helps other Authors to follow the same methodology and achieve good results.
In Table 4, the evaluation of the impact on the tools listed could have been easier to verify by audience, if the literature reference is attached to the effects listed in the second column of the table.	Thank you for your observation. However, these effects and correspondent work is previously detailed in Table 3. Thus, inserting the references in the 2nd column of Table 4 seems a redundancy for us. Hope you understand that Table 4 has been built based on Table 3, previously read by the audience.
Generally, the structure of the paper and the findings were not convincing in respect of the originality of the contents of the paper. Similar review papers can be identified in peer reviewed journals. In addition, the contents are also mostly an assembly of what was already discovered in the cited research work.	Thank you for your comment, but we don’t agree with you in this matter. Indeed, other Literature Reviews can be performed regarding similar objectives, but the data treatment and the model developed are the main novelty of this work.
The candidate could have developed a more rigorous concept/ theory based on the findings of the critical review conducted.	Thank you so much, but the model created seems robust enough to create the theoretical approach needed to justify the publication of this paper.

 

 

All manuscript was deeply revised in terms of misspellings and coherence, trying to avoid mistakes.

The authors would like to thanks once again all the valuable contributions given by the Editor and Reviewers, allowing the paper improvement.

We are looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you so much for your attention.

 

Kind regards,

José Carlos Sá

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors present a very interesting and pertinent research. Nevertheless, I would like to point some positive and negative aspects, which in my opinion (hopefully), will contribute to improve the quality of the document for a second full reading.

 

Positive aspects:

-        The use of the DMAIC to govern the research across the multiple interrelated topics.

-        The use of Graph-theory to map the relationships between the different lean areas is a plus point of this work.

-        The great majority of the references are not older than 5 years.

-        The document is very well supported by research conducted by the authors.

 

Negative aspects:

 For a reputable journal as the Sustainability, there are may corrections/improvements to be done. Here are just some:

-        There are countless typos regarding the English language across the document. For example, in the abstract, in the first paragraph, the authors need to add either brackets or a hyphen to add the following information: “probably the 18 most comprehensive and applied methodologies in this context”. The next one (for example): “Shingo’s model makes it possible to guide companies”. A suggestion of improvement could be: Shingo’s model helps organizations toward operational excellence. Another one: “This study intend to … “. Here it could simply be: this study aims to … There are many more across the different sections of the document. This makes the document unreadable. I suggest the authors to restructure and rewrite the document using short sentences.

-        Still, I suggest a professional-English-proof reading across the overall document.

-        The paper is too extensive for such research (without a case study). I suggest the authors to add Annexes instead of showing all the detailed results illustrated across the multiple figures (for example figure 4, 5, 6, and 10 (for example). Only the major (and relevant) results for the aim of the research should be mentioned across the document.

-        The balance between the different chapters across the document is out of “equilibrium”. The conclusions (for example) are very poor when compared with other chapters …

-        In the introduction, it is not clear the aim of the presented study. The authors write: “ The main contribution of this research is the development of a conceptual model that relates lean six sigma tools with the different pillars of sustainable development, in which the DMAIC plays the role of structured methodology allowing for a strategic direction for improvement.

The aim of the research to the scope of the journal is also not very clear. I suggest the authors to introduce a chapter or sub-chapter to highlight the major contributions o f the research to the scope of the journal. For example: 1.1 Relevance and novelty of the research.

-        The aim of the research illustrated in the introduction not aligned with what is written in the conclusions chapter … This makes it very difficult to understand the real goal of this work … Please be clear and consistent across the document.

-        The conclusions (line 561-569) are unreadable… The same goes for the recommendations for future research (line 601-607) … Please rewrite the conclusions using shorter sentences and with meaningful articulation.

-        Figures 1 and 2 do not really add much more value to the whole document. It is more than sufficient to mention the key points of the Shing Model. In case if the authors want to keep Figures 1 and 2, their titles and quality should be corrected / improved to the standard referencing style of the journal. This is very easy to do once they are available online with high resolution.

-        Still, please check the sequential numbering of Figures across the whole document. For example, figure 5 comes before figure 4.

-        The same for all tables across the document. Table 1 for example is repeated 2 times.

-        Table 3 is too extensive, namely the “Theory” application areas. I suggest the authors to wither short the description, or to provide less examples. It just does not add value to the document. The introduction to Table 3 is also wrong. The number of this Table is wrong. Please correct the numbering of all Table across the whole document.

-        Finally, in the conclusion’s chapter, the academic and managerial implications are missing.

 

Good luck 

Author Response

Response to the Editor and Reviewers

Paper sustainability-1795883

"Development of an excellence model integrating Shingo model and sustainability"

Dear Editor,

The authors would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for taking the time to review this paper and provide positive feedback, useful suggestions and valuable criticisms. We have carefully considered reviewer’s comments and believe the paper has been deeply improved.

Below you can find the questions put by the reviewers as well as our responses. We also presented a full revised version of the paper, where we try to include all the suggestions made by the reviewers. However, due to contradictory ideas among reviewers, it was not always possible to fully address their suggestions and comments.

 

Reviewer #3
Comment/Suggestion	Action done
Positive aspects:
The use of the DMAIC to govern the research across the multiple interrelated topics.	Thank you so much for your positive feedback.
The use of Graph-theory to map the relationships between the different lean areas is a plus point of this work.
The great majority of the references are not older than 5 years.
The document is very well supported by research conducted by the authors.
Negative aspects:
For a reputable journal as the Sustainability, there are may corrections/improvements to be done. Here are just some:	Thank you for your crucial help.
There are countless typos regarding the English language across the document. For example, in the abstract, in the first paragraph, the authors need to add either brackets or a hyphen to add the following information: “probably the 18 most comprehensive and applied methodologies in this context”. The next one (for example): “Shingo’s model makes it possible to guide companies”. A suggestion of improvement could be: Shingo’s model helps organizations toward operational excellence. Another one: “This study intend to … “. Here it could simply be: this study aims to … There are many more across the different sections of the document. This makes the document unreadable. I suggest the authors to restructure and rewrite the document using short sentences.	Thank you so much for your crucial observation. Your suggestions have been taken into account. An additional effort has been made to correct all paper. As non-Native English Speakers, there is a natural difficulty to write English as a Native. We apologise for this.
Still, I suggest a professional-English-proof reading across the overall document.	English has been revised throughout the document.
The paper is too extensive for such research (without a case study). I suggest the authors to add Annexes instead of showing all the detailed results illustrated across the multiple figures (for example figure 4, 5, 6, and 10 (for example). Only the major (and relevant) results for the aim of the research should be mentioned across the document.	Thank you so much for your suggestion, but this would implies a complete restructuration of the paper, which was not recommended by the other 3 Reviewers. Thus, we would like to keep the structure as it is because the other Reviewers agree with it.
The balance between the different chapters across the document is out of “equilibrium”. The conclusions (for example) are very poor when compared with other chapters …	Thank you for your comment. In fact, the Discussion allows for a deep analysis of the work performed and the Conclusions only helps the reader to contextualize the main achievements. However, the Conclusions section has been improved in order to allow the reader understands what can be found throughout the paper.
In the introduction, it is not clear the aim of the presented study. The authors write: “ The main contribution of this research is the development of a conceptual model that relates lean six sigma tools with the different pillars of sustainable development, in which the DMAIC plays the role of structured methodology allowing for a strategic direction for improvement.	Thank you for your observation. This aspect has been improved, as highlighted in yellow colour in the introduction.
The aim of the research to the scope of the journal is also not very clear. I suggest the authors to introduce a chapter or sub-chapter to highlight the major contributions o f the research to the scope of the journal. For example: 1.1 Relevance and novelty of the research.	Thank you for your comment. The novelty has been highlighted in the Introduction and Conclusions.
The aim of the research illustrated in the introduction not aligned with what is written in the conclusions chapter … This makes it very difficult to understand the real goal of this work … Please be clear and consistent across the document	Thank you so much for your suggestion and comment. This aspect has been improved in the Introduction.
The conclusions (line 561-569) are unreadable… The same goes for the recommendations for future research (line 601-607) … Please rewrite the conclusions using shorter sentences and with meaningful articulation.	Thank you for your comment. We have been improved as much as possible the readability of the paper (Conclusions included).
Figures 1 and 2 do not really add much more value to the whole document. It is more than sufficient to mention the key points of the Shing Model. In case if the authors want to keep Figures 1 and 2, their titles and quality should be corrected / improved to the standard referencing style of the journal. This is very easy to do once they are available online with high resolution.	Thank you for your opinion but we would like to keep the figures because they can constitute a good didactic way to beginners in this field. Thus, we have deeply improved the images, as per your recommendation.
Still, please check the sequential numbering of Figures across the whole document. For example, figure 5 comes before figure 4.	Thank you so much for your alert. Indeed, a problem with automatic cross-referencing has been detected and corrected. Thank you, again.
The same for all tables across the document. Table 1 for example is repeated 2 times.	The same procedure of cutting all cross-referencing process has been applied. Thank you.
Table 3 is too extensive, namely the “Theory” application areas. I suggest the authors to wither short the description, or to provide less examples. It just does not add value to the document. The introduction to Table 3 is also wrong. The number of this Table is wrong. Please correct the numbering of all Table across the whole document.	Maybe the Reviewer refers to Table 4. Indeed, this table is very long, but if we cut the explanations (they are a sum of the work previously developed by others), it would be difficult for the reader to understand from where the ideas furtherly sum are coming. Moreover, this is a practice followed by many other Authors. Thus, we have decided to keep the table as it is, because the other 3 Reviewers think it is useful.
Finally, in the conclusion’s chapter, the academic and managerial implications are missing.	Thank you so much for your comment, which is common to other Reviewers. The Conclusions have been deeply improved.

 

All manuscript was deeply revised in terms of misspellings and coherence, trying to avoid mistakes.

The authors would like to thank once again all the valuable contributions given by the Editor and Reviewers, allowing the paper improvement.

We are looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you so much for your attention.

 

Kind regards,

José Carlos Sá

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This study aims to identify the tools that can be integrated into DMAIC in order to enable organizations to succeed in the three pillars of sustainable development (economic, social and environmental) and, at the same time, achieve operational excellence. The research was based on a systematic literature review in the areas of lean, six sigma, lean six sigma and the Shingo Model.

The article is very interesting, deals with a relevant topic and is well written and structured, but is classified as an exploratory study.

A few short observations for the authors to consider.

In methodological terms, why use only the WoS? Why didn't they use Scopus? It seems to me that a great part of important studies may not have been included. I think the justification given by the authors in subsection “Methodology - Database Selection” is not solid enough.

 

Regarding the results, the presentation is very interesting. But I would sugest in this part that the authors rethink table 3. This table should be converted to text, because it is not feasible to have a table on 10 pages

In the conclusions, the authors can reinforce how the results of this study can contribute to the three pillars of sustainable development (economic, social and environmental). This was the starting point, but the conclusions are not clear on this matter.

Additionally, in the conclusions section, it would be interesting to highlight the theoretical and practical implications of this work.

Author Response

Response to the Editor and Reviewers

Paper sustainability-1795883

"Development of an excellence model integrating Shingo model and sustainability"

Dear Editor,

The authors would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for taking the time to review this paper and provide positive feedback, useful suggestions and valuable criticisms. We have carefully considered reviewer’s comments and believe the paper has been deeply improved.

Below you can find the questions put by the reviewers as well as our responses. We also presented a full revised version of the paper, where we try to include all the suggestions made by the reviewers. However, due to contradictory ideas among reviewers, it was not always possible to fully address their suggestions and comments.

 

Reviewer #4
Comment/Suggestion	Action done
This study aims to identify the tools that can be integrated into DMAIC in order to enable organizations to succeed in the three pillars of sustainable development (economic, social and environmental) and, at the same time, achieve operational excellence. The research was based on a systematic literature review in the areas of lean, six sigma, lean six sigma and the Shingo Model.	Thank you for summarizing our work in a very assertive way.
The article is very interesting, deals with a relevant topic and is well written and structured, but is classified as an exploratory study.	Thank you for your comment.
A few short observations for the authors to consider.	Thank you.
In methodological terms, why use only the WoS? Why didn't they use Scopus? It seems to me that a great part of important studies may not have been included. I think the justification given by the authors in subsection “Methodology - Database Selection” is not solid enough.	Thank you for your observation, but our Institution allows restrict access to SCOPUS. Only some basic functions are available. Thus, it is usual for us to use WoS and no problems have been raised by Reviewers regarding the source of information. However, we have added an explanation about the importance of WoS as being owned by Clarivate.
Regarding the results, the presentation is very interesting. But I would suggest in this part that the authors rethink table 3. This table should be converted to text, because it is not feasible to have a table on 10 pages	Maybe the Reviewer refers to Table 4. Indeed, this table is very long, but if we cut the explanations (they are a sum of the work previously developed by others), it would be difficult for the reader to understand from where the ideas furtherly sum are coming. Moreover, this is a practice followed by many other Authors. Thus, we have decided to keep the table as it is, because the other 3 Reviewers think it is useful.
In the conclusions, the authors can reinforce how the results of this study can contribute to the three pillars of sustainable development (economic, social and environmental). This was the starting point, but the conclusions are not clear on this matter.	Thank you for your comment. In fact, the Discussion allows for a deep analysis of the work performed and the Conclusions only helps the reader to contextualize the main achievements. However, the Conclusions section has been improved in order to allow the reader understands what can be found throughout the paper.
Additionally, in the conclusions section, it would be interesting to highlight the theoretical and practical implications of this work.	Thank you for your suggestion. This improvement has been done. We fully agree with you in this aspect.

 

 

All manuscript was deeply revised in terms of misspellings and coherence, trying to avoid mistakes.

The authors would like to thanks once again all the valuable contributions given by the Editor and Reviewers, allowing the paper improvement.

We are looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you so much for your attention.

 

Kind regards,

José Carlos Sá

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

English language grammar and style in Section 7( the new insertion) should be proofread and refined.  

Author Response

Response to the Editor and Reviewers

Paper sustainability-1795883_R2

"Development of an excellence model integrating Shingo model and sustainability"

Dear Editor,

The authors would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for taking the time to review this paper and provide positive feedback, useful suggestions and valuable criticisms. We have carefully considered reviewer’s comments and believe the paper has been deeply improved.

Below you can find the questions put by the reviewers as well as our responses. We also presented a full revised version of the paper, where we try to include all the suggestions made by the reviewers. However, due to contradictory ideas among reviewers, it was not always possible to fully address their suggestions and comments.

 

Reviewer #2
Comment/Suggestion	Action done
English language grammar and style in Section 7 (the new insertion) should be proofread and refined.	Thank you for your kind words and recommendation. The paper has been revised accordingly.

 

 

All manuscript was deeply revised in terms of misspellings and coherence, trying to avoid mistakes.

The authors would like to thanks once again all the valuable contributions given by the Editor and Reviewers, allowing the paper improvement.

We are looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you so much for your attention.

 

Kind regards,

José Carlos Sá

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

great improvements!

Just check some minor English typos

good job !

Author Response

Response to the Editor and Reviewers

Paper sustainability-1795883_R2

"Development of an excellence model integrating Shingo model and sustainability"

Dear Editor,

The authors would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for taking the time to review this paper and provide positive feedback, useful suggestions and valuable criticisms. We have carefully considered reviewer’s comments and believe the paper has been deeply improved.

Below you can find the questions put by the reviewers as well as our responses. We also presented a full revised version of the paper, where we try to include all the suggestions made by the reviewers. However, due to contradictory ideas among reviewers, it was not always possible to fully address their suggestions and comments.

 

Reviewer #3
Comment/Suggestion	Action done
great improvements! Just check some minor English typos good job!	Thank you for your kind words and recommendation. The paper has been revised accordingly.

 

 

All manuscript was deeply revised in terms of misspellings and coherence, trying to avoid mistakes.

The authors would like to thanks once again all the valuable contributions given by the Editor and Reviewers, allowing the paper improvement.

We are looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you so much for your attention.

 

Kind regards,

José Carlos Sá

Author Response File: Author Response.docx