jobs

repetition between methodology and pg 20

Upto date tables with new references

It was noted to date that the references in the table are a few years old.

Should they be updated:

The impact of supplychaincomplexity on manufacturing plant performance http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272696308000570

Green supply-chain management: A state-of-the-art literature review

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00202.x/abstract;jsessionid=3B79DE25F4BFCC214A4710E3A2CE620E.d02t03?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

References to be added:

many to be added

Progress on TO BE

1. Added a new introduction section that addresses point 1 (conceptual modelling in general)
     PA:  Is it bitty? too long?
             Reviewer asks that the case is made for the need for SCM academics.

Add refs

2. Conmtribution - seems more clearer now. 

    PA: to tidy up?

3.  Pavel to check whether the references to Weaver (2010) are necessary?

4. Similar to 3, not many perspectives exist. Argue this case.

5.  Tables are reformed.

6.  This requires a good read / revise.

7.  Paper is made more unique.

8.  Made clear that is a case illustration.

Miles to check:   it says case illustrations.


Utility section:
- take out 5.1 -- check?
- take out bits now in methodology section -- check?
- describe the problems

General comment:

tables explained in text

Outstanding for Miles:
References need to be done

Use of an illustration case

R3 calls for a more unique case, this would require alot more work and is the focus of future work.

Therefore, it needs to be clear Yin type arguments and why we are using ' archival cases' in this bit and  later an industrial case. This needs to be made more explicit in the RM section.

The specific case for "simulation" conceptual modelling

The task today is to incorporate into the text some comments on what makes "simulation" conceptual modelling unique (to study in this way) and to differentiate it from other types of CM?

Q. This was addressed in the thesis (as a result of a minor correction). How might this learning be transferred in this context?

This was addressed in the 'delimitations of scope' and in great detail in the 'scope and selection of contributions in the lit review' (section 2.1, pg. 27-8).

1. The section includes an description of a general definition for CM
2. different areas in which the term CM is used
3. notes three notable differences that make it unique

These three differences include:

• domain to be represented
• scope and level of abstraction
• process to be followed to create a conceptual model

Q. Where can this discussion be incorporated?


It is either:

1. Incorporate into the introduction
2. A new section

Likely to be 2.



Q. What exact changes should be made?



Q. Will PA approve of the changes to be made?




dIFFERENT TYPES OF cm;

LOGICAL MODELS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_model

Deductive-nomological model 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive-nomological_model




Notes from the reviewers:

How is “simulation” conceptual modeling different than other types of conceptual modeling? Can this same proposed 7-phase method be applied to any other conceptual modeling? Why or why not?

How is the proposed conceptual modeling procedure different than conceptual mapping, logical modeling, nomological modeling, scientific modeling, and other types of conceptual modeling procedures that the academics currently follow? I think this is vital part that is missing from this manuscript. Unless the author can do a great job convincing reviewers that this is a new and unique procedure that is needed by the supply chain academics, the motivation to publish this study is simply not there.

Putting Humpty back together again

The previous meeting with Pavel led to an action to put the tables back into the paper, Pavel to read it and respond to the reviewer 3 comments.

We need to work smart on each of the papers.

The questions for Pavel to address while reading the paper include:

Q1. Contribution: What is the contribution of this paper beyond Robinson’s work? Is it just the SCM application? If it is, then I would re-position the paper and focus on that with some new SCM ideas.


! A procedure is proposed that combines domain-knowledge in the form of SCOR with general concepts and addresses the requirements for developing conceptual modelling approaches. Not only is there limited guidance, no complete review of this guidance and how it can be synthesised into a new methodology has yet to be studied. 










Q2. Is the methodology unique? Can he be improved?






Other discussion points:


A. Can this same proposed 7-phase method be applied to any other conceptual modeling? Why or why not?








B. The flow of the paper seems disjointed and hard for the reader to follow. Can this be amended PA?