From resilience to satisfaction: Defining supply chain solutions for agri-food SMEs through quality approach

Tutur Wicaksono; Csaba Bálint Illés

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0263393

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 17, 2021
20 Nov 2021 Decision Letter - Claudio Soregaroli, Editor PONE-D-21-28048From resilience to satisfaction: defining supply chain solutions for agri-food SMEs through quality approachPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wicaksono, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please consider all points raised by reviewers, with particular attention to the sample size considerations made by reviewer 2 and the overall organization of the paper made by reviewer 1 (I would recommend too a clear distinction of the types of implications). Please also note that both reviewers have raised issues about the quality of the English text and the need for a proofreading. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 04 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Claudio Soregaroli Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Overall the paper is good. I have comments that need to be addressed, which are as follows: 1) In abstract, you need to add some results and implications. 2) In introduction, please add specific research question and objectives of research. 3) There is need to add a justification in methodology section and answers why you choose QFD, why not other similar methods? what is the advantages and disadvantages of the methods and how your selected method will help you to address your research objectives. 4) It is highlight recommended to add managerial, practical, and theoretical implications of your research results. 5) Although I am not a native speaker of the language. It is recommended to proof read your paper one more time for consistency, and removing errors. Reviewer #2: The paper provides an application of quality function deployment (QFD) to improving the resilience of agrifood supply chains. This is a useful QFD case with relatively novel application, that QFD and supply chain practitioners may find valuable in teaching and practice. There are some minor typographical inaccuracies to be fixed: A lack of capitalisations following full stops (e.g. lines 100, 123, 271, 297). (Line 445) reference is made to "Zafar and Haq's research". There is no other mention of this paper in the article, nor is there a numerical reference given for this paper. Some sentences do not make much logical / rhetorical sense, e.g. (line 97) "The literature on risk management in agri-food supply chain is extensive but still very limited." How is that possible? (Line 108) "political and institutional risks, and political and security risks" repetition of political. (Line 442) "Using IT can effectively reduce the risk of getting stuck in traffic jam" Really? How??? The more significant correction to be made is in the methodology. The sample size (of 341 customers) is justified in the paper with reference to Hair et al and a minimum sample size of 100. But this lacks context: reliable sample size is dependent on the statistical analysis being conducted (e.g. the power of a test, type II risk etc.). At this stage in the paper, however, the proposed statistical analysis is not yet explained. In the minimum number of 100 responses, Hair et al are referring to multivariate methods such as principal component analysis, SEM etc. However, they also describe a minimum number of responses per Likert question on a questionnaire. Other minimum or target sample sizes are cited by Hair et al for Cronbach's alpha reliability values. The authors should explain what they intend to do with their sample data before discussing the sample size or reliability values. round line 260, the authors discuss Cronbach's alpha "which means that the data is reliable to use". Firstly, data is a pluralisation of the singular datum (so data are....), secondly, again - the authors must explain what they plan to do with the data before discussing C.A. In this case they are planning to produce a summated scale value to measure a construct. This should be explained. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263393.r001
Revision 1
27 Dec 2021 Author Response Response to Reviewer 1 1. Review: In abstract, you need to add some results and implications. Response: We have added an explanation of the results and implications in the abstract on lines 8 -14. “The result shows that the top three customer needs are "attractive, bright color", "firm texture" and "fresh smell". The top three risks in the agri-food supply chain are "improper storage," "Harvest Failure" and "Human Resource Risks" and the top three resilience actions are "continuous training," "preventive maintenance," and "supply chain forecasting." The implications of this study are to propose an idea that broadens the perspective of supply chain resilience in the agri-food industry by incorporating the needs of customers in considering how to mitigate existing risks to the satisfaction of customers, and it also highlights the relatively low skill and coordination of the workforce in agri-food supply chains.” 2. Review: In introduction, please add specific research question and objectives of research. Response: We have added specific explanations of the research questions and objectives in the introduction in lines 47-54. “The objectives of this research are as follows. First, to determine the priority of customer needs. Second, to determine the priorities of risks in the agri-food supply chain. Third, to determine the priority of actions to improve supply chain resilience for small and medium-sized agri-food enterprises by identifying customer needs, risks that affect customer satisfaction, and actions that need to be taken to mitigate these risks. We compose the research questions based on the research objectives as follows: 1. What are the priority needs of agri-food customers (CNs)? 2. What are the priority risks in the food supply chain (AFSCRs)? 3. What are the priority supply chain resilience actions (SCRAs)?” 3. Review: There is need to add a justification in methodology section and answers why you choose QFD, why not other similar methods? what is the advantages and disadvantages of the methods and how your selected method will help you to address your research objectives. Response: We have added a specific explanation in the introduction in lines 182-187 of why we chose QFD, the benefits of choosing the QFD method, and how QFD can achieve our research objectives. “A model based on the QFD method is used. This method is known for providing an in-depth understanding of customer needs and then used to identify alternative solutions using the House of Quality (HoQ) matrix, which is able to define the relationship between customer needs and products (goods or services). In accordance with the objectives of this study, QFD is an appropriate method to be used in this study because it has the advantage of translating customer needs into attributes ("how") as a form of follow-up by each functional area in meeting customer needs” 4. Review: It is highlight recommended to add managerial, practical, and theoretical implications of your research results. Response: We have added an explanation of the managerial, practical, and theoretical implications in the implication line in sections 446-466. “This result gives rise to several theoretical implications. First, this study is able to provide new ideas and successfully fill the literature gap presented in Section 2 by considering attributes of customer needs and combining them with risk attributes to find resilience solutions that can also satisfy customers in the agri-food supply chain of SMEs. Secondly, this study is able to provide ideas for future researchers as a reference for the practical procedural steps in using two levels of HoQ as a tool to determine the what and how in the QFD method. The thorough understanding gained from a recent literature review on agri-food quality, agri-food risk and supply chain resilience provides the basis for identifying and developing attributes for customer needs, agri-food risk and resilience to build HoQ, which is also confirmed by customers and relevant industry stakeholders. Third, this study proposes an idea for a list of customer needs, risk and resilience solutions that could become a standard for future research. This study also has practical implications for agri-food SMEs to build a resilient agri-food supply chain. Firstly, this study has succeeded in highlighting the low skills and knowledge of agri-food actors, especially in the area of supply chain and total quality, in order to raise enthusiasm for improving skills. In addition, agri-food SMEs are weak in coordination among organizations in the supply chain as they are only concerned about internal operational benefits. In view of the findings of this study, it is recommended that agri-food SMEs, starting from producers to suppliers to distributors and retailers, can improve coordination and collaboration to overcome customer satisfaction risks. In addition, important implications for management also emerge from this study. This industry is a labor-intensive industry. The results show that the priority risks that can negatively affect customer satisfaction are related to the lack of skills and knowledge of employees. Therefore, business owners or top managers should pay more attention to employees' skills and knowledge through continuous training” 5. Review: Although I am not a native speaker of the language. It is recommended to proof read your paper one more time for consistency, and removing errors. Response: We have proofread this manuscript again and made linguistic improvements. We have improved the quality of the English subtitles for this manuscript and have also done some proofreading Response to Reviewer 2 1. Review: There are some minor typographical inaccuracies to be fixed: A lack of capitalizations following full stops (e.g. lines 100, 123, 271, 297). (Line 445) reference is made to "Zafar and Haq's research". There is no other mention of this paper in the article, nor is there a numerical reference given for this paper. Response: We have corrected some typographical inaccuracies in lines 100, 123, 271 and 297 at your request, which has also changed the line position (please check lines 93, 113, 247 and 272). we have fixed the error by adding a numerical reference to the research of Zafar and Haq (please check line 411) 2. Review: a. Some sentences do not make much logical / rhetorical sense, e.g. (line 97) "The literature on risk management in agri-food supply chain is extensive but still very limited." How is that possible? b. (Line 108) "political and institutional risks, and political and security risks" repetition of political. c. (Line 442) "Using IT can effectively reduce the risk of getting stuck in traffic jam" Really? How??? Response: a. We have corrected the sentences to make them more logically/rhetorically meaningful. We use "significant" instead of "extensive" and change it to "The literature on risk management in agri-food supply chain is significant, but still very limited." (Please check line 82). b. We corrected the word repetition "political" from "political and institutional risk and political and security risk" that you seem to mean in line 100. Change it to "public and institutional political risk and political and security risk" (please check line 93). c. The use of IT such as software or online mapping applications that can provide information on road density and offer real-time alternative route options with shorter journey times and the best departure times to avoid the risk of congestion. 3. Review: The more significant correction to be made is in the methodology. The sample size (of 341 customers) is justified in the paper with reference to Hair et al and a minimum sample size of 100. But this lacks context: reliable sample size is dependent on the statistical analysis being conducted (eg the power of a test, type II risk etc.). At this stage in the paper, however, the proposed statistical analysis is not yet explained. In the minimum number of 100 responses, Hair et al are referring to multivariate methods such as principal component analysis, SEM etc. However, they also describe a minimum number of responses per Likert question on a questionnaire. Other minimum or target sample sizes are cited by Hair et al for Cronbach's alpha reliability values. The authors should explain what they intend to do with their sample data before discussing the sample size or reliability values. round line 260, the authors discuss Cronbach's alpha "which means that the data is reliable to use". First, the data is a pluralization of the singular datum (so the data are....), secondly, again - the authors must explain what they plan to do with the data before discussing C.A. In this case they are planning to produce a summated scale value to measure a construct. This should be explained. Response: The statistical analysis of this study aims to evaluate and present the importance of CNs by calculating the mean value of each CNs attribute. For this purpose, a Likert scale (1-5) questionnaire was used to conduct a survey among 341 customers. This study is not a hypothesis testing study. It uses not only the principle of statistical generalization (the sample represents the population), but also that of analytical generalization (generalization from a particular to a broader theory or construct). We agree with the 2nd reviewer's opinion about the lack of context in using Hair et al. (2014) as a reference for sample size, and therefore changed the reference for determining our sample size based on the Roscoe rule of thumb, which we cited from Sekaran and Bougie (2016) that stated A sample size of more than 30 and less than 500 is appropriate for most studies. A sample size that is too large (e.g., over 500) could become a problem in that we would then be susceptible to committing Type II errors. Related Round Line 260 We changed the phrase from data "is" to "are" (please check line 237). We added an explanation of what we intend to do with the data, which is to create a summed scale score to measure a construct, which is done in this study by starting to assess the importance of the CNs by calculating the mean for each CNs attribute. (Please check line 228-230). We have improved the quality of the English subtitles for this manuscript and have also done some proofreading Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263393.r002
19 Jan 2022 Decision Letter - Claudio Soregaroli, Editor From resilience to satisfaction: defining supply chain solutions for agri-food SMEs through quality approach PONE-D-21-28048R1 Dear Dr. Wicaksono, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Claudio Soregaroli Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263393.r003
Formally Accepted
21 Jan 2022 Acceptance Letter - Claudio Soregaroli, Editor PONE-D-21-28048R1 From resilience to satisfaction: defining supply chain solutions for agri-food SMEs through quality approach Dear Dr. Wicaksono: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Claudio Soregaroli Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263393.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .