Analysis of the Value of Information and Coordination in a Dyadic Closed Loop Supply Chain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents an interesting study on the value of information in closed loop supply chains. However I think that the paper has major flaws to be fixed.

Here my comments:

• Abstract: please add some more information on the methodology used (you built 12 scenario, but how?)
• Introduction:
  1. Many statements without reference
  2. You mention that you consider supply networks, but actually you are dealing with a dyad, that is not a network. I suggest you to be clearer.
  3. I suggest you to better frame and justify your work: You affirm that literature is not conclusive on the value of information in reverse logistics, but you did not provide enough support to your statement. Moreover, in general information in Supply Chains is valuable. Why should this be different in closed loop SCs?
  4. I suggest you to clarify in the introduction better to which literature stream you are adding knowledge
  5. I would suggest to clarify the definitions of your variables in the introduction (which performance? What is uncertainty? What is information and what is coordination?)
• Lit review: the literature review is confusing. It is a list of papers: I would suggest to organize the section in subsections, and to highlight in one section the main literature gaps.
• Table 1 is interesting, but how the last column was built is not clear. Moreover, in the text you mention the benefits of a centralized approach, but you did not clarify nor mention it before. I would suggest to modify and clarify
• Methods:
  1. the variable “perimeter of decision making” was not mentioned before, and it does not seem connected to the research question. Please clarify
  2. you mention that in literature on coordination of SC. Which literature?
  3. How long is a period? In t=0 you do not know about 36 months? Maybe the information can arrive in the meantime
  4. It could be interesting to suggest possible real industries where the scenarios can apply
  5. The remanufactured products are sold at the same price? And to the same customers that buys the new ones? Please discuss the implication of such a simplification
  6. In the design of experiments please refer to the references used to define the numbers
• Results and conclusions
  1. Results are expectable: I suggest you better highlight what is new and interesting
  2. You mention you discuss the value of information: how did you quantify that?
  3. Discussion of the results is poor: what are the managerial implications? This study has according to me a lot of limitations due to simplifications, please highlight them and discuss them

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The analysed problem is interesting, however in order to judge the methodology and results more information (especially about qunatitative prameters) are required. The model has to be enriched for better cover all the aspects of closed loop supply chain.

The literature review is ok, however I consider more interesting the summary at the end instead of the short description of all papers (focus only of the most significant and describe more into details their contents).

Check table 2, what is the meaning of 1st column.

Include in the model Manufacturing and Re-manufacturing costs, explain why they are equal (in tht case which is the objective of closed loop?)

Introduce a lag for remanufactured product, which numer is inked to the shipment made in previous periods.

Justify the use of Uniform distribution (usually demand is representted with Gamma, Lognormal, etc.)

For sensitivity analysis fo not make absolute variation but specify % variation, which are the base level ,(Demand Return) in table 3.

Which is the ratio of holdng and backlog costs?

LInes 398-403 check your statement focusing on the scenarios with perfect information or at least 2 known data.

Figure 4 and others, does the approach allow to also estimate the varaiance of costs 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

GENERAL COMMENTS:

 

Authors consider an interesting and relevant problem (i.e, the coordination and the value of information in closed loop supply chains)  in the field of supply chain  management, and  present an original study on the basis of a linear programming approach. Authors consider the relevant related literature, illustrate the proposed methodology and conduct a simulation study on some experimental cases.

 

The scientific work reported in the submitted manuscript is of clear interest under both the research and the application point of view. After a description of the specific supply chain management  issues and the addressed research questions, the proposed approach and a review of the relevant literature, authors present their ideas illustrating their characteristics and potential benefits on the basis of some ad-hoc designed experiments. The manuscript presents a methodology which can be of potential interest also in different contexts, in particular where the integration of  supply chain design, demand, production and re-cycling or re-manufacturing is relevant.

 

Overall, I believe that the paper presents an interesting study for a relevant application in the field of supply chain management. The topic of the paper seems to be sound with respect to MDPI-Sustainability journal, but some aspects of the manuscript need to be improved before publication can be considered.

 

In order to improve the overall quality of the paper, there are more detailed and specific suggestions and remarks reported in what follows.

 

Other comments and remarks:

 

• In their introduction or (better) in the successive literature review and references, authors should also consider (or discuss) also some further works on environmentally conscious Supply Chains. For instance, I found the following works:

- M. Dotoli, M.P. Fanti, C. Meloni, M.C. Zhou, Design and Optimization of Integrated E-Supply Chain for Agile and Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing, IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics, part A, 36, 1, 2006, 62-75.

- M. Dotoli, M.P. Fanti, C. Meloni, M.C. Zhou, A Multi-Level Approach for Network Design of Integrated Supply Chains, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 43, No. 20, 4267-4287, 2005.

• The values of the parameters and coefficients used in the illustrative or computational examples need always some motivation. Readers are interested to know how these values are obtained, and possibly how the behavior of the methods is affected by these choices. So, these aspects deserve a better discussion in the manuscript.
• As the manuscript discusses on a methodology which is of potential interest also in different contexts. Authors should better illustrate –at least in the conclusion– their ideas to extend/generalize their results on the basis of their characteristics, the potential strengths and weaknesses for further applications.
• From the presentation point of view, even if the form is adequate, it is suggested that an additional proof reading be done by the authors before submitting a new version of the paper.
• The first time authors use an initialism or acronym in their manuscript, the words should be written (please check) out with the short form placed in parentheses. This way, it's clear to the readers exactly what the letters mean.
• The quality, clarity and readability of the figures should be improved. In addition, more explicative caption and descriptions should be used.

 

 

Concluding, on the basis of the aforementioned comments and remarks, the paper - in my opinion –  is of interest for publication on MDPI-Sustainability journal provided that authors improve their work considering the suggested revisions before the publication can be considered.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors thank you for the new version that presents in a clearer form your results and adressess various of my previous comments.

Below my new comments.

Closed Loop SC is pushed by issues about sustainability (additional taxes for pollution) or for achieveing cost advantage (chepaer materials or remanufacturing costing less). These are important aspects to be included in a model about Closed Loop, you have to justify why you are simply considering holding and backorder or not claiming that you are considering the total costs (line 61-62)

Justify the chosen ratio for holding and backlog costs and why the are equal for all players. (line 293-294)

Check sentences in lines 200-202 and 223-224, something seems missing.

Printing I don't see the image at line 266

Check the notation of the 1st variable in line 339

I found unclear the sentences in lines 342-346, can you provide an extended description?

Question, are you generating th ereturned quantity using teh uniform or are you taking the as references the Demand value of "n" previous periods?

Applying the same uncertainty in numerical value to different starting values can be a problem, +3 from 8 to 12 has an impact +3 on 1.6 (8*0.2 approx to 2 I suppose) and 2.4 (12*0.2 approx to 3), you obtain different value of Coefficient of Variation

Fig 2b check the 2nd scenario I see 1 I suppose should be 11

Line 374 replacing 40% with 50%

Result 2 line 404 you claim one reason is that holding costs increase, you model allow to estimate holding and backlog costs fo reach scenarios in order to plot them.

Question: how Lot size information is used in your models, which is the imapct of knowing or not knowing it (which equation are touched by this)?

Question: If remanufactured product are "independent" by new manufactured prodducts, changing the return rate has to influence also teh value of teh lot size, or it is ok to keep it constant?

Good idea underlinig the managerial implication, however in the conclusions also the limitations of the study have to be underlined (focusing only on holding and backlog cost, keeping production cost constant, using a dyadic SC,  etc.)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2: Thank you for your review of our paper. We appreciate the careful review and constructive suggestions. We have also marked in light blue the changes made to the round 2 corrected version of the document. Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is consistent and well describe the chosen problem and its analysis, it was important to underline the limitations and is going to be interesting working on them in further papers.

I am still convinced that a more holistic and complex problem description can strongly enhance the usefulness of the paper findings.