A Methodology for the Design and Engineering of Smart Product Service Systems: An Application in the Manufacturing Sector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper aims to extend the existing service engineering methodology to cover the design and engineering of smart products and services focusing on the data and information and the sustainability implications of the product and service.

The study of new methodologies to develop new smart products and services is nowadays an interesting subject from a scientific and industrial point of view, however, unfortunately, the research developed by the authors presents certain limitations.

1.- The authors raise a very interesting topic today in the field of the design of new products based on the union of the requirements and needs of the client together with the needs of the product service, using digitization and the information that can be extracted from the product as work tools. In this approach, it is possible to design smart products that improve the sustainability of the product throughout its life cycle. Unfortunately, the authors present only a conceptual solution applied to a single case study, so with this information it is not possible to evaluate in detail the scientific impact of their research. The authors are recommended to expand the information presented with some validation results of the developed platform, creating a series of indicators that allow comparing the current results of the alpha company with those obtained by using the platform.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you for your attention.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper discusses about the methodology for the design and engineering of product service system (PSS) with a focus on the manufacturing sector. However, it is very hard to evaluate the performance of this Service Engineering Methodology for the engineering of smart PSS (SEEM-Smart) as there is no quantitative analysis reported in this study. Therefore, the authors need to show the quantitative analysis of their proposed system so that potential users may interest in their research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you for your attention.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1.Is it true that this study fills a gap in this direction as stated in the paper?

2.Whether this research has the potential to be widely applied and how operational it is？

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you for your attention.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Notes in the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you for your attention.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed satisfactorily the points raised during the review

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The authors added section 4.5 to explain the monitoring of the results for the users as the response of the quantitative data needed to show the system's robustness. However, the information still does not give a clear estimation or prediction of the system's robustness. Therefore, once again, the authors must add quantitative information, even if it is only an estimated value/prediction, then compare the value with other systems already implemented/studied. Otherwise, there will arise some skepticism about the authors' proposed system.

 

For example, please show what will happen if the proposed system cannot provide 100% requirement/performance of phase 1: analysis, phase 2: conceptualization, phase 3: design, and phase 4: creation of the PSS proof of concept and implementation? What is the minimum percentage of the system on each phase that still works properly? What is the suggested range of percentage values that the potential users in the company should provide? How is the performance of the proposed system under the suggested minimum percentage value compared with other systems already used/studied previously?

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Please see the attachment.

 

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The revision is adequate.