A Conceptual Framework for Data Sensemaking in Product Development—A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents a conceptual framework for data sensemaking in product development and a case study in automated parking system design. In the introduction and conclusion sections, authors should define more precisely the main novelty of the approach. It is not clear how it differ from tradition PD approaches and how big data are used in the iterative stages. Moreover, in the introduction, authors state that the research scope is to bridge data analytics with design specifications and prototyping, while in section 1.2 that companies use data for providing predictive mantainance services. So, are data analytics used for product design or for service design? In section 4.4 there is an error in reference. Fig 5 must be splitted in more figures because it is impossible to read diagrams, graphs while it is very useful for the uderstanding of the different framework stages. In the use case it could be useful to better explain how big data can be integrated in the framework at a practical level.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time and dedication in providing us with valuable review feedback. We have added a document with our response to each of the comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have presented a detailed conceptual model to guide the development of complex system. Overall, the paper is well-written and rigorous. The model seems to have application in the industry and research. I think it will be very useful for those who are always looking for a model to guide their research activities.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time for providing us with nice review feedback. We have updated the manuscript with improved English language and other claritication and quality changes.

Reviewer 3 Report

Some general comments in this regard.

-       About the Abstract

n  First sentence demands some quantitative support.

n  Even when “data” are relevant in this work, the use of the term is abusive and not properly justified. Sometimes, two times in the same sentence.

n  As this summary is written, not scientific proof/support is provided. The author should justify this work with valuable quantities.

 

-       About the Introduction

n  In the same line as above. As it is now, it is a narrative of the scenario, and intentions. Authors should include scientific elements to support all the statements there included, otherwise avoid all such elements that sustain opinions instead of technical contributions.

n  “Complex organizations”. Define them with mathematical rigor. This concept is essential to follow your reasonings.

n  Complete captions in all the figures/schemes. Include a sentence –at least—explaining why this figure/scheme is relevant within the context there developed.

n  Lines 41-45. Does not sound as a contribution. It is the general trend in Big Data Analysis. Then so, which is your contribution? State it clearly.

n  Line 59, is it needed? Maybe the focus should be on advantages and limitations associated to the selection of this scenario.

 

-       About the SoA.

n  Line 83, quite empty. “High”, what it means?

n  A deeper analysis is required. In fact, one of the main limitations encountered when reviewing the manuscript, is associated with the difficulties encountered to identify your contributions.

n  Then, try to make an up-down review of the SoA. How is this subject treated within other fields? Summary advantages and limitations. For instance, by issuing a comparative table.

n  To take account of contributions coming from Artificial Intelligence consider references as such below indicated:

 

·      Andreas Hinderks, Dominique Winter, Francisco José Domínguez Mayo, María José Escalona, Jörg Thomaschewski (2022). "UX Poker: Estimating the Influence of User Stories on User Experience in Early Stage of Agile Development", International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, vol. 7, issue Regular Issue, no. 7, pp. 97-104. https://doi.org/10.9781/ijimai.2022.11.007

 

·      Shikha Gupta, Anuradha Chug (2021). "An Extensive Analysis of Machine Learning Based Boosting Algorithms for Software Maintainability Prediction", International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, vol. 7, issue Regular Issue, no. 2, pp. 89-109. https://doi.org/10.9781/ijimai.2021.10.002

 

·      Martin Schrepp, Raphael Otten, Kerstin Blum, Jörg Thomaschewski (2021). "What Causes the Dependency between Perceived Aesthetics and Perceived Usability?", International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, vol. 6, issue Regular Issue, no. 6, pp. 78-85. https://doi.org/10.9781/ijimai.2020.12.005

 

n  Pay attention, that the authors is not the relevant element to distinguish when reviewing the SoA. The emphasis should, instead, be on contributions. As it is the SoA now writing, understanding by general readers is quite difficult and do not make the reading attractive.

 

n  What´s the reasoning behind Fig. 2? Why is it relevant? Sounds quite basic and standard within the technical area on debate.

 

-       About Methodology section

n  Same indications as above. Where are the technical progresses, why is this methodology so specific and well suited to deal with your problem? As it is written it sounds as a quite genera procedure and technical precision is the n demanded.

 

-       About Results section

n  Quite general and more specific elements should be provided, either by creating more specific/technically detailed scenarios and/or providing some numerical results to show hoy your methodology would work in real scenarios.

n  Fig. 4. What makes it needed for a technical contribution? It sounds as a quite standard procedure.

n  Fig. 5. Not readable. Replace and simplify it.

n  Fig. 6, correct styles, include magnitudes in the legends, avoid unnecessary details.

n  Lines 533-534, explain reasons behind discussion there “announced” somehow.

 

-       About Discussions section.

n  In this section the authors afford a discussion of the results presumably obtained. Then, advantages of the methodology proposed should be included. Then, after a (not yet included) explanation of advantages of your theory relative to the SoA, authors should include some numerical elements to quantitative support your results. Otherwise, this work should suffer from inconsistencies from the technical point of view.

n  Lines 783- 786, sound ambitious –accepted—but technical elements to support such challenges should be provided.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time and dedication in providing us with valuable review feedback. We have added a document with our response to each of the comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept as is