Framework for Selecting Manufacturing Simulation Software in Industry 4.0 Environment
, Cosimo Calabrese 1, Giorgia Casella 2, Eleonora Bottani 2 and Teresa Murino 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is focused on presentation and description of the proposed by Authors their own methodology which could be useful in the process of selecting the most suitable manufacturing simulation software package. The proposed methodology has been clearly described and presented. The strong element of the paper is case study section (chapter 4) in which the methodology has been verified.
Although the general perception of the paper is very positive some of its elements need improvement. Namely quality of some figures is not good enough. It especially refers to the figures number: 2, 3, 5, and 7. Also references need some action. Namely, although its number is quite impressive (87) many of them are not up-to-date. The paper is about “selecting manufacturing simulation 2 software in Industry 4.0 environment” and we can find publications issued even in 1979. This aspect should be definitely improved.
Author Response
English language and style
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
Our reply to your comment about the usage of English: we have checked the paper once again to remove typos and minor spelling errors.
General comments:
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? Can be improved
Our reply: in the light of your comments, we have now added some further references focusing in particular on the topic of maturity model and selection of the simulation software. Moreover, we have tried to update some references. To be more precise, we have replaced the most obsolete references with some references from the last two years. Please see Introduction section. We hope that this satisfies your request.
Is the research design appropriate? YES
Our reply: thanks for this positive comment.
Are the methods adequately described? YES
Our reply: thanks for this positive comment.
Are the conclusions supported by the results? Can be improved
Our reply: we apologize if the conclusions were not sufficiently clear at the time of submission. In the light of your opinion, we have tried to clarify the description of this section. Please see Section 5. We hope that this satisfies your request.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This paper is focused on presentation and description of the proposed by Authors their own methodology which could be useful in the process of selecting the most suitable manufacturing simulation software package. The proposed methodology has been clearly described and presented. The strong element of the paper is case study section (chapter 4) in which the methodology has been verified.
Although the general perception of the paper is very positive some of its elements need improvement.
- Namely quality of some figures is not good enough. It especially refers to the figures number: 2, 3, 5, and 7.
Our reply: we apologize if the quality of the figures was not sufficiently good. We have tried to improve the resolution and organization. Please see Figures 2, 3, 5 and 7. We hope that this satisfies your request.
- Also references need some action. Namely, although its number is quite impressive (87) many of them are not up-to-date.
Our reply: we have tried to update some references. To be more precise, we have replaced the most obsolete references with some references from the last two years. Please Section 1. We hope that this satisfies your request.
- The paper is about “selecting manufacturing simulation 2 software in Industry 4.0 environment” and we can find publications issued even in 1979. This aspect should be definitely improved.
Our reply: it is true that this reference could seem obsolete, because Industry 4.0 is a new concept, and that is general it is always better to have recent references in a paper, to ensure consistency with the up-to-date results. Actually, however, the paper you mention is not about Industry 4.0. Rather, it concerns the maturity models and their levels. As such, we will prefer to leave in in the paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors propose a framework for choosing the most suitable manufacturing simulation software package. They developed the framework based on two different methods: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) integrated with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs, Risks (BOCR) analysis and the Best-Worst Method (BWM).
The topic is useful and up to date but the paper needs revisions before publishing.
Major revisions:
- The abstract is chaotic. Please rewrite it. The authors have indicated so many aims in the abstract that is it difficult to figure out what is the main one. Please indicate the background of your research (why to you chose that topic). Please highlight the main goal. Then explain what the original contribution of the paper is? Which research question have the authors stated? How authors’ approach differs from other paper on similar topic. What is the main purpose of study?
- The introduction is too long. Despite its length it does not provide sufficient answer about what is the originality of the paper. The statement “These two approaches have never been applied to the selecting simulation software problem and could bring some advantages.” Please justify the research gap you are addressing. Why have you chosen to use AHP and WBM? Provide explanation why have you chosen those methods? Why do you use both methods?
- The remaining of the paper is well structure and logically written.
- The literature review is sufficient and relevant.
- The methodology is correct.
- The framework testing in my opinion is not sufficient. How your approach is better than other software choice approaches? What are the main benefits of them, what are the limitations? How do you justify the statement “The most comprehensive and, at the same time, simple framework for simulation software selection was” ( in line 752)
- How current company maturity level is linked to the software choice? Shouldn’t be there some guidelines about the minimum maturity level for implementing solution of industry 4.0?
- The case study does not indicate how time consuming is the application of your framework. Who is reasonable to use the framework and define criteria?
- In lines 776-777 stated “In conclusion, the proposed framework may be of big help in the Industry 4.0 era, where simulation is central in operations management”. Please justify that statement. Provide discussion on the limitations and benefits of your approach in comparison with the state of the art.
Minor revisions
- Revise the caption of Table 7. It is written there “Table 7. Pairwise comparison of the software packages for each criterion (Note: red = worst 711 criterion; green = best criterion)” Currently no colors are there!
Author Response
English language and style
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
Our reply to your comment about the usage of English: we have checked the paper once again to remove typos and minor spelling errors.
General comments
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? Must be improved
Our reply: in the light of your opinion, we have now added some further references focusing in particular on the topic of maturity model and selection of the simulation software. Moreover, we have tried to update some references. To be more precise, we have replaced the most obsolete references with some references from the last two years. Please see Introduction section. We hope that this satisfies your request.
Is the research design appropriate? Can be improved
Our reply: we have tried to improve the research design. In particular, we have added a new section (current section 3) to detail the research methodology followed to derive the framework proposed in the paper. We hope that you will find this section adequate.
Are the methods adequately described? Can be improved
Our reply: we have tried to improve the research design. In particular, we have added a new section (current section 3) to detail the research methodology followed to derive the framework proposed in the paper. We hope that you will find this section adequate.
Are the results clearly presented? Must be improved
Our reply: we apologize if the description of the results was not sufficiently clear at the time of submission. In the light of your comment, we have tried to clarify the description of the outcomes. Please see Section 5 and Conclusions.
Are the conclusions supported by the results? Must be improved
Our reply: we apologize if the conclusions were not sufficiently clear at the time of submission. In the light of your comment, we have tried to clarify the description of this section. Please see Section 6. We hope that this satisfies your request.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors propose a framework for choosing the most suitable manufacturing simulation software package. They developed the framework based on two different methods: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) integrated with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs, Risks (BOCR) analysis and the Best-Worst Method (BWM).
The topic is useful and up to date but the paper needs revisions before publishing.
- The abstract is chaotic. Please rewrite it. The authors have indicated so many aims in the abstract that is it difficult to figure out what is the main one. Please indicate the background of your research (why to you chose that topic). Please highlight the main goal. Then explain what the original contribution of the paper is? Which research question have the authors stated? How authors’ approach differs from other paper on similar topic. What is the main purpose of study?
Our reply: this is an important point. We apologize if the abstract was not sufficiently clear at the time of submission. In the revised version, we have tried to clarify the background of our research, the main purpose of our study and the original contribution of this work. We hope that this satisfies your requests.
- The introduction is too long. Despite its length it does not provide sufficient answer about what is the originality of the paper. The statement “These two approaches have never been applied to the selecting simulation software problem and could bring some advantages.” Please justify the research gap you are addressing. Why have you chosen to use AHP and BWM? Provide explanation why have you chosen those methods? Why do you use both methods?
Our reply: we have checked the paper once again to make the introduction more succinct. Please see in particular Section 1. We apologize if the motivation for the selected methods was not sufficiently clear at the time of submission. We have improved the description of the way they have been chosen. Please see Sections 1 and the end of section 2. We hope that this satisfies your requests.
- The remaining of the paper is well structure and logically written.
Our reply: many thanks for this positive comment.
- The literature review is sufficient and relevant.
Our reply: many thanks for this positive comment.
- The methodology is correct.
Our reply: many thanks for this positive comment.
- The framework testing in my opinion is not sufficient. How your approach is better than other software choice approaches? What are the main benefits of them, what are the limitations? How do you justify the statement “The most comprehensive and, at the same time, simple framework for simulation software selection was provided” (in line 752).
Our reply: this is an important point. In the revised version, we have tried to clarify the main benefits and the limitations of our approaches in the Conclusions. Moreover, we fully agree with you that the sentence “the most comprehensive and, at the same time, simple framework for simulation software selection was provided” was too generic and inappropriate; we have therefore removed it in the revised paper.
- How current company maturity level is linked to the software choice? Shouldn’t be there some guidelines about the minimum maturity level for implementing solution of industry 4.0?
Our reply: in section 4.1 (table 2) we have discussed the relationship between the maturity level of a company and its potential of benefiting from the usage of simulation software packages. In particular, we have stated that “The results of this step allow the company to obtain a quick overview of the global maturity level of their operational processes. Taking into account the correspondence between the maturity classification levels and the FMML score, it is easy to deduce that a company with FMML<40 is not in the position of getting success from the permanent usage of a simulation software”.
- The case study does not indicate how time consuming is the application of your framework. Who is reasonable to use the framework and define criteria?
Our reply: we have added some more details about the time required for the application of the proposed approach along with the description of the various steps. Please see section 5 and its subsections.
- In lines 776-777 stated “In conclusion, the proposed framework may be of big help in the Industry 4.0 era, where simulation is central in operations management”. Please justify that statement. Provide discussion on the limitations and benefits of your approach in comparison with the state of the art.
Our reply: we have tried to clarify our intended meaning with the sentence “In conclusion, the proposed framework may be of big help in the Industry 4.0 era, where simulation is central in operations management”. Moreover, we apologize if the limitations and benefits of our approach was not sufficiently clear at the time of submission. We have improved the description in comparison with the state of the art. Please, see Sections 1 and 5.
- Revise the caption of Table 7. It is written there “Table 7. Pairwise comparison of the software packages for each criterion (Note: red = worst 711 criterion; green = best criterion)” Currently no colors are there!
Our reply: probably, an error occurred during the submission or during the generation the PDF; in our version the colors are visible. Please see “Ease of use (EU)” – green= best criterion –, and “Vendor (VE)” – red=worst criterion. We hope that this satisfies your requests.
Reviewer 3 Report
It is an interesting paper. Research contributions have been mentioned. There are weaknesses identified.
1. Analytics play important roles in Industry 4.0 and its software simulations. But authors have not even expanded in this area.
2. Similarly, reusable software framework can be used. This means if there are similar demands, then software frameworks or codes can be reused to some extent without developing it again from scratch.
3. Authors mention ANP and MCDM but they need to work together with IoT and e-commerce which are important for Industry 4.0.
4. Some references and brief explanations should be made for points 1 and 2. To help authors:
a) Industry 4.0 and its software simulations can be largely benefited from the use of analytics and analytical simulations.
Presenting cloud business performance for manufacturing organizations. Information Systems Frontiers (2020), 22, 59–75.
b) Reusable software, frameworks and approaches can be used towards the development of Industry 4.0.
Towards a reuse strategic decision pattern framework–from theories to practices. Information Systems Frontiers (2019), 21(1), 27-44.
c) The following work blends ANP and MCDM together with IoT and e-commerce.
IoT and its impact on the electronics market: A powerful decision support system for helping customers in choosing the best product. Symmetry (2019), 11(5), 611.
5. Please double-check any English editing, grammar and clarity issues.
Author Response
English language and style
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
Our reply to your comment about the usage of English: we have checked the paper once again to remove typos and minor spelling errors, also following your suggestions below.
General comments
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? Can be improved
Our reply: in the light of your comments, we have now added some further references focusing in particular on the topic of maturity model and selection of simulation software. Moreover, we have tried to update some references. To be more precise, we have replaced the most obsolete references with some references from the last two years. Please see Introduction section. We hope that this satisfies your request.
Is the research design appropriate? Can be improved
Our reply: we have tried to improve the research design. In particular, we have added a new section (current section 3) to detail the research methodology followed to derive the framework proposed in the paper. We hope that you will find this section adequate.
Are the methods adequately described? YES
Our reply: thanks for this positive comment.
Are the results clearly presented? Can be improved
Our reply: we apologize if the description of the results was not sufficiently clear at the time of submission. In the light of your comment, we have tried to clarify the description of the outcomes. Please see Section 5, in which the methodology has been tested. We hope that this satisfies your request.
Are the conclusions supported by the results? YES
Our reply: thanks for this positive comment.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
It is an interesting paper. Research contributions have been mentioned. There are weaknesses identified.
- Analytics play important roles in Industry 4.0 and its software simulations. But authors have not even expanded in this area.
Our reply: thank you for suggestion. We have quoted in the amended version of the paper among the references a paper related to this topic. Please, see Section 1. We hope that this satisfies your request.
- Similarly, reusable software framework can be used. This means if there are similar demands, then software frameworks or codes can be reused to some extent without developing it again from scratch.
Our reply: thank you for suggestion. We have quoted in the amended version of the paper among the references a paper related to this topic. Please, see Section 5. We hope that this satisfies your request.
- Authors mention ANP and MCDM but they need to work together with IoT and e-commerce which are important for Industry 4.0.
Our reply: thank you for suggestion. We have quoted in the amended version of the paper among the references a paper related to this topic. Please, see Section 1. We hope that this satisfies your request.
- Some references and brief explanations should be made for points 1, 2 and 3. To help authors:
- Industry 4.0 and its software simulations can be largely benefited from the use of analytics and analytical simulations. “Presenting cloud business performance for manufacturing organizations”, Information Systems Frontiers (2020), 22, 59–75.
- Reusable software, frameworks and approaches can be used towards the development of Industry 4.0. “Towards a reuse strategic decision pattern framework–from theories to practices”, Information Systems Frontiers (2019), 21(1), 27-44.
- The following work blends ANP and MCDM together with IoT and e-commerce. “IoT and its impact on the electronics market: A powerful decision support system for helping customers in choosing the best product”, Symmetry (2019), 11(5), 611.
Our reply: thank you for suggesting valuable references. We have retrieved the papers you listed, analyzed its and tried to relate it to our work and we have quoted in the amended version of the paper among the references.
- Please double-check any English editing, grammar and clarity issues.
Our reply: we have checked the paper once again to remove typos and minor spelling errors.
