Lean Six Sigma with Value Stream Mapping in Industry 4.0 for Human-Centered Workstation Design
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article does not show a new contribution in the way of applying lean six sigma tools.
The results do not have the weight of scientific research. The improvements implemented do not have technical engineering support.
Figures 4, 11 and 12 do not have good visibility. Low quality of these figures
Discussion and findings are not deep.
There are no future research recommendations.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Title of the manuscript: Lean Six Sigma with value stream mapping in Industry 4.0 for picking workstation design
Manuscript ID: Sustainability-1806142
The problem addressed in this paper is very much needed study in this time. Though, the paper has been written well, it has some issues. The following are the comments on this paper:
1. Abstract: Written well. But some lines are quite confusing. For example, the following lines are difficult to understand and follow. The project identified during the value stream analysis period is carried out using the step-by-step implementation of DMAIC methodology. Identified root causes are validated and countermeasures are implemented for productivity improvement. To reduce human errors, the team used a human-centered approach, evaluated and deployed numerous lean tools such as visual management, error prevention, and waste analysis. Consider improving the sentences.
2. Introduction: Needs improvement. Lacks continuity and coherence. Provide some information on DMAIC in the introduction. Reference(s) is needed for the sentence: Numerous authors have provided particular strategies for certain businesses, despite the fact that this strategy is wide and versatile for many industries.
3. Related Work on VSM and LSS: VSM or VSA. Be consistent in the terminologies used.
4. Research Methodology: Providing references may improve the validity of the sentences.
5. Case study: Figure 2. Provide complete figure.
6. Conclusion: Needs to be improved. Highlight the contributions of the study. List the limitations and future scope of the study.
7. References: Refer most recent articles. Preferably, published in the last 5 years.
Overall the paper seems satisfactory. However, the language needs to be improved drastically. Many sentences are not clear. Better proofread the manuscript with a native English speaker.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The work is poorly explained and lacks details. From my point of view, it’s a project report than a research paper since it lacks identification of knowledge gaps, knowledge transfer, use of objective data to make decisions, etc. as well as it fails to highlight findings, recommendations and essential details which can be helpful for research process. The origin of paper and method are not apparent. It is not clear what is VSM 4.0 in this work. Overall, the authors do not make a sufficiently significant or insightful contribution to justify publication in the journal.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
In this paper the authors present an application to workstation design of the combination of the 'define-measure-analyze-improve-control' method in Lean Six Sigma and Value Stream Mapping 4.0.
The topic is worth interesting and the article is well structured and organized. Herafter are reported detailed comments on the manuscript.
Introduction and state of the art
The context of the work is well presented and the motivation of the research is well defined. Also the state of the art is properly discussed and organized. nevertheless the contribution of the authors is not particularly clear and appears minor. In fact, the authors state that they "present a case study combining the define-measure-analyze-improve-control (DMAIC) method in LSS and VSM 4.0 to design a unique workstation to support workers with an intellectual disabilities", thus it is not clear if the novelty is the combination of LSS and VSM4.0 or the application of such techniques to the specific case study. In either cases combining LSS and VSM4.0 is not particularly innovative. Authors must clarify this aspect, otherwise the work and contribution of the paper is too weak.
Case study
The description of the workstation architecture is particularly vague. A graphical representation of the workstation in the as is condition must be provided for a clearer explanation of the considered system. Also, Figure 4 must be described more in detail and substituted with a higher resolution one.
In general, I suggest to revise the titles of the sections and better clarify the corresponding contents.
Almost all figures must be substituted with higher resolution ones. Moreover, figure 2 is incomplete, confusing, and almost unredable. Figures 11 and 12 are incomplete.
Additional papers to be considered to strengthen the literature review can be: A lean warehousing integrated approach: A case study; Process Re-engineering based on colored Petri Nets: the case of an Italian textile company; Automating Bin Packing: a Layer Building Matheuristics for Cost Effective Logistics; Design of Modern Supply Chain Networks Using Fuzzy Bargaining Game and Data Envelopment Analysis.
Use the same font for the whole document.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The article does not show a new contribution in the way of applying lean six sigma tools.
Partially answered. I consider that the article cannot contribute more than indicated.
The results do not have the weight of scientific research. The improvements implemented do not have technical engineering support.
Accepted answer, but I consider that the article cannot contribute more than indicated.
Figures 4, 11, and 12 do not have good visibility. Low quality of these figures
Figure 4 does not have good visibility.
Discussion and findings are not deep.
OK
There are no future research recommendations.
OK
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper has only been edited, but not in an appropriate manner, e.g., see "However, few studies have shown the need for a higher-level analysis, such as value stream mapping (VSM), is required to discover chances for improvement." This sentence, along with many other sentences throughout the paper, is unclear and questionable.
In general, no improvement was made; the comments/concerns were not addressed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The article has been sufficiently improved and the previously raised issues have been tackled by the authors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
