A Systematic Literature Review of the Integration of Total Quality Management and Industry 4.0: Enhancing Sustainability Performance Through Dynamic Capabilities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attached file!
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, please address the issues mentioned below:
1. The article's title requires revisiting. Do the authors mean 'a systematic literature review, ' as the study's aim states?
2. The authors must justify the selection of the literature review period from 1997 to 2024. Why is the literature review from 1997? A short historical overview of how the concept of Industry 4.0 was developed when the term was first used would be necessary to justify the selection of the literature review period.
3. Providing authors based on critical reflection on other authors' research on the essence of the Industry 4.0 concept is necessary as researchers still need to form a shared understanding. It is characterised as a ‘strategic initiative to transform industrial manufacturing’ (Chuah, 2020), “the implementation of “smart” devices that can communicate autonomously along the value chain” (Santos (2018), “ a new level of organisation and control over the entire value chain of the life cycle of products; it is geared towards increasingly individualised customer requirements” (Vaidya et al. (2918), or the next phase of digitalisation of the manufacturing sector, etc.
4. The authors state that Industry 4.0 is a methodology (see lines 493 – 494). What do you mean by this? If Industry 4.0 is a methodology, then how does this methodology intervene with the quality management system and underlying TQM methodology? The author’s perspective could clarify which perspective the integration of “Industry 4.0” with TQM is investigated to improve quality and overall performance. How do authors understand quality?
5. 5.0 is rapidly developing (Ghobakgloo et al., 2023). What differences would it bring to the topic investigated, and what could be the future research agenda?
6. The authors conduct a systematic literature review and develop a theoretical model elucidating the complex interrelations among TQ, Industry 4.0, and sustainability. There is no clarity on what the authors mean by “Sustainability performance” (see lines 3,65, 68, 494, etc.) and “sustainable performance” (lines 62, 485, etc.). Do the authors mean sustainable development performance or organisational sustainability performance? These are different concepts.
What is the difference from the author's point of view? An explanation of the characteristics of both terms used is required. The search string in the systematic literature review uses “sustainable performance” (see Table 2) instead of sustainability performance. This leads to inconsistencies and confusion in the research performed and the results discussed.
7. The authors must provide the characteristics and essence of TQM, its primary purpose, and its elements since there are different and often conflicting views. For example, “TQM is the latest breakthrough in the field of management, where all activities are aimed at optimising customer satisfaction through continuous process improvement” (Elitan, 2021). What is the authors' view on the essence of TQM?
8. What is the essence of Industry 4.0 integration with TQM? Based on which perspective? As it is defined by Sader et al. (2019), “TQM is a management technique that strives to achieve company excellence by focusing on quality”. How can Industry 4.0 be integrated with TQM as a management technique? How is Industry 4.0 affecting TQM practices and principles? How can the latest technologies used in Industry 4.0 improve quality management itself? What are the samples of Industry 4.0 and TQM integration? (276). The authors must address these issues.
9. There needs to be clarity on the effective integration of Industry 4.0 and TQM. Based on which criteria it could be measured? (line 279).
10. Does Industry 4.0 itself enhance organisational performance (line 58), or does the application of the latest technologies by organisations that form Industry 4.0 drive quality, efficiency, customer responsiveness improvement, innovation and overall organisational performance? What is the role of TQM specifically in this regard?
11. Please explain what the authors mean by “...fostering seamless integration with TQM principles… “(line 323). Please explain those principles.
12. The characteristics of the essence of Dynamic capabilities (25, 96, 111) and critical reflection on different authors' definitions of dynamic capabilities essence are needed as they would add value to the article.
13. DC framework needs reference (see line 282)
14. No reference to Kitcharoen (see line 104) is given; the authors must address this.
15. It was mentioned that three experts were selected to validate the systematic literature review process (see lines 111-112), but the text needed to reference the experts' intervention process and outcomes. It is not clear based on which criteria these experts were selected and for what purpose they were used.
16. The concepts ‘competitive advantage’ (lines 61, 267, etc.) and ‘competitive edge’ (37, 339, 345, etc.) are used without explanation of their meaning. Are both of those used by authors interchangeable? If not, please explain.
17. Sources for tables and figures are not provided.
18. The authors use I4.0. The abbreviation “I4.0” is not explained in the text (465,468, 473). The acronym could be given at the beginning of the paper before the authors use it.
19. The authors propose crafting a “well-defined strategy for integrating Industry 4.0 and TQM”. What do they mean by this? Is a specific strategy needed? What do authors mean by “strategy”? Will it not lead to the organisation's fragmentation of “strategies”?
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo further comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNot applicable
