Thank you for the opportunity to read this manuscript. The idea is good but there is some remarkable area for improvement. Below is some feedback and suggestions, which hopefully can help the author(s) to significantly improve the manuscript.

Abstract
•The aim of the paper is not clear. The company's problem is indeed mentioned, but it does not lead to a clear paper aim.
•Indications regarding the originality or uniqueness or academic contributions of the paper are not seen in the abstract. Some practical contributions are visible, but academic contribution is overlooked.

Introduction
•The author(s) starts the abstract and introduction by directly discussing the profile of PT. Schenker. It should be noted that PT. Schenker is only a case. In the beginning, the author(s) are advised to introduce the territory of knowledge and positioning the paper in broad literature. So, the emphasis is not on the company (whatever the company is) but the development of certain areas of knowledge. The company can be discussed briefly at the end of the introduction and can be discussed longer, for example, in the methodology (and data) section.
•Lack of references is evidenced in various parts of the introduction, for example, the first and third paragraph. The position of this paper in the midst of broad literature on both quality management and six sigma/lean six sigma is unclear.
•Research questions and objectives are written at the end of the paper. However, the question is, why that research questions and objective important? Why is it worth to be researched and to be published?
•In brief, this section does not give a convincing impression regarding the academic contributions of the paper.

Literature review
•This section is too descriptive. The basic concepts discussed throughout the paper are not clearly explained. For example, what is the lean six sigma? In what way, that concept relates to even performance? Then how it related to the event code? 
•This section is expected to be a theoretical foundation for the paper; however, lack of clarity and references is also evidenced in this section. For example, the statement, “Lean is a systematic approach to eliminate waste and activities that do not have added value from a processâ€. What is the meaning of this sentence? Do author(s) have any reference to it?

Methods
•This paper discusses a single case study. Need strong justification why the single case chosen? Why that company? Why not another company? There is no explanation found regarding the selection of this method.
•“data is collected by conducting interviews, brainstorming and distributing questionnaires to the company's expert judgment.â€ Why interview? Why brainstorming? Why questionnaires? There is no explanation of the reasoning behind the selection of data collection techniques.
•Table 1 is good, especially the column of position or job designation; however, is it necessary to write down the names of respondents? Did the author(s) obtain the consent of the names to be included?
•“3 people to fill in the FMEA tableâ€ Why 3 people? Who these people? Why those people?
•How the data is analyzed, step by step, is not explained clearly and transparently in the paper.
•Did the author(s) aware about bias in this research? How the author(s) deal with the bias? This needs to be explained in the paper.
•In brief, this section does not give a convincing impression that research is carried out robustly.

Results and Discussion
•Technical calculations and graphs / figures presented are good. Nevertheless, as the consequence of the lack of clarity of methods and data, the results of this study are not very convincing.
•This section is mostly descriptive, without or nearly without relating it to the literature. Hence, it can be said this section is results only, with no discussion.
•It is evidenced from this section that paper is not prepared carefully. Some mistakes and lack of clarity in communication in here and there (for example, example page 9: ‘dokumentasi’, instead of ‘documentation’; or ‘kapabilitas proses’ instead of process capability).

Conclusion
•There is no clear thread between data, analysis, and conclusions.
•Research limitations and further research directions are not explained.

In general, this paper has a good potential, but does not appear to be well-prepared and requires a large reworks to make it more convincing.

Thank you.