On LSP Lifecycle Model to Re-design Logistics Service: Case Studies of Thai LSPs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is interesting. The authors should improve the explanation of the realation of the results and I4.0 proposals by each case study, specialy in case study 2. Conserning the paper  some improvements can be made:

Abstract

Line 13: Logistics Service Providers (LSP) lifecycle….

Line 15 after “according”  that is a symbol? ???

Line 19: Key words:  LSP Lifecycle,  instead LSP’s lifecycle

Line 39  replace” voice of customer” by Voice of  Customer (VOC)

Line 50 please put a reference in the BWM

Line 86 Figure 2. Presents the Design Parameters (DP) …

Line 86 Figure 2 presents the Design Parameters (DP) in Axiomatic Design responding to customer need as of LSP Lifecycle Model [40].

Replace Figure 3 without doing PDF or as figure (increase the figure 3 quality)

Line 100 : Production Lifecycle Analysis (PLC Analysis) .. is the first time

Line 102 PLC Analysis…

Line 116 “concern if their product is mature in the market” replace by concern if their product is mature in the market

Figure 4b) should be improved (what is write on it?)

Line 248 . Saying that “I.4.0 is applied by developing website” should be explain more the relation with table 6…

Line 272  “are in the following Table 1.” Please replace by table 7

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

I revised point by point following the reviewer1's comments. Please provide your response to the attachment.

Best Regards, 

Sunida Tiwong

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I think the paper is interesting but unfortunately, at theoretically and methodologically the paper is still very underdeveloped. Below you can find my detailed comments about how the paper could be developed further.

1. Introduction: the research gap should be justified much better. At the moment, I do not see research gap justification based on the gap identified from previous literature. This should definitely be in the introduction.

The concept of QFD and LSP should also be further described.

The introduction should include research questions.

2. Literature review is not enough to support the literature gap considered in this study. The introduction section is poorly organized, there are many missing links, and in addition, it is good to express the need for the study with the backlog of literature exists in the framework. There is no background in this introduction stating the urge and novelty of the study in which innovative ideas must be flown through the background along with the useful insights.

The literature review should be broader. It is worth to refer to the works of the following authors:

Clegg, B., Kersten, W., & Koch, J. (2010). The effect of quality management on the service quality and business success of logistics service providers. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management.

Zimon, D., Madzik, P., & Sroufe, R. (2020). Management systems and improving supply chain processes: Perspectives of focal companies and logistics service providers. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management. Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print.

Fonseca et al., (2018). Assessment of circular economy within Portuguese organizations. Sustainability, 10(7), 2521.
etc.

Kilibarda, M., Zečević, S., & Vidović, M. (2012). Measuring the quality of logistic service as an element of the logistics provider offering. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 23(11-12), 1345-1361.

3. A section of discussion should be developed in which authors will discuss the results of the study more broadly.

4. Expand the summary.

5. Results: the results do make sense but they are not presented in a proper format. I would like to know how the results were similar to or different from other studies. This is not clear

6. Conclusions: the implications for research, theory, practice and society are not clear though I can see that these aspects can be elaborated further. Research limitations must be explained.

7. Develop a discussion section in which you compare the results with other studies.

8. Summarizing the article should be refined in the following areas: • Expand the theoretical part and enrich the research part with discussion, • Describe the research limitations, • Formulate goals and hypotheses, • Develop conclusions.

Thus, I would suggest the authors to develop the paper further. Good luck with the paper!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

I revised point by point following the reviewer2's comments. Please provide your response to the attachment.

Best Regards, 

Sunida Tiwong 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

My sincere congratulations on the final result of your investigation. I hope that you will continue to work in this field of research and provide results that are very useful.

You may want to consider developing the discussion section slightly.

I am very satisfied of the improvements.

Great work!