A Framework of Action for Implementation of Industry 4.0. an Empirically Based Research
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The corrections I suggested were applied, and the doubts I had were dispelled.I believe that the article is suitable for publication in its current form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you again for your insightful and constructive comments on our article in the first round. We appreciate your positive feedback about our manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
In general, the findings of this study are more suitable for a conference paper rather than for a high-quality journal publication. The sample size is way too low. The findings are almost not relevant for state-of-the-art research on Industry 4.0. Moreover, literature does not consider recent studies at all.
Author Response
Comments: In general, the findings of this study are more suitable for a conference paper rather than for a high-quality journal publication. The sample size is way too low. The findings are almost not relevant for state-of-the-art research on Industry 4.0. Moreover, literature does not consider recent studies at all.
We would like to thank you for your comments and time spent analyzing our article. We are sorry that it did not find your support. We are aware of its imperfections but would like to justify its form.
First of all, we would like to refer to the nature of our research and point out that it was a pilot study, which may have not been sufficiently stressed in the article. The selection of the sample was deliberate and due to this not representative. The study had the character of the first contact with the examined reality. We wanted to verify the respondents' knowledge of Industry 4.0, to gather information about perceived obstacles of Industry 4.0, and to check their response to research issues and the way of measuring. On this basis, we wanted to formulate a proper research plan and tool for the needs of further, expanded research. For that reason we decided to add an appropriate correction to the content of the article:
In Section 1 (Introduction), p.2, line 69, we added the word „piloting”. The whole sentence now reads:
“The purpose of the article is to present the results of the piloting research conducted among I4.0 experts regarding industry specifics and attributes, issues related to the preparation of companies for I4.0, including limitations appearing early on in the process, and difficulties arising in the later stages.”
In addition, we added the sentence:
“At the same time, the pilot study aimed at collecting data to provide guidelines for substantive research adapted to Polish conditions, using observational data to create the right research tool.” (Please, see p.2, lines: 72-74).
In Section 1.3 (Research Questions), p.6, lines 256-257 we decided to delete the sentence:
„In this paper, we focus on empirical research in the above areas at the SMEs and large companies in the region of Silesia (Poland).”
Reflecting on the article, we found that this sentence would be more appropriate for the main study than the pilot study.
In Section 2 (Research and Methods), p. 6-7, lines 271-281, specifically, in order to make it more explicit, we added a fragment to the text:
„This study is a pilot study, preceding the main research. The rationale for conducting it is the fact that I 4.0 in Poland is still at a low level of development, and the mechanisms characteristic for this subject of the study are little known. Hence, we carried it out on a small scale. The selection of the sample was deliberate and due to this not representative. The pilot study reported in this article may be viewed as a combination of the two types of pilot studies used in social sciences: feasibility studies, and the pre-testing (Baker 1994). The study had the character of the first contact with the examined reality; we wanted to verify knowledge about I4.0, limitations, and challenges associated with the implementation of I4.0, check the reaction of respondents to research issues, and the way of measuring. It was also important to gather information on the studied environment and study population in order to be able to formulate a proper research plan and tool for the needs of further expanded research”.
Furthermore, in Section 2, p.7 line 282 we decided to delete the sentence:
“For this purpose, a quantitative, empirical study design was chosen.”
As for section 1.3. we conclude that it is more justified in the case of the main study.
A proper analysis of the procedures and results from the pilot study facilitates the identification of weaknesses that may be addressed (Gudmundsdottir & Brock-Utne, 2010).
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper's composition is coherent; the structure is logical and meets the goal of the paper. The title " FRAMEWORK OF ACTION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF INDUSTRY 4.0. AN EMPIRICALLY BASED RESEARCH " put well the paper's objective; it is clear and expresses the issue being assessed well. The abstract is formulated adequately along with the true picture of the paper; all required components are mentioned there. All the tools and methods the author uses are reasonable and well described and adequately fit the problem being assessed to give the reliable results. The paper’s composition is coherent; the structure is logical and meets the topic of the paper. References are relevant using the proper sources of information. The topic is crucial and significant considering the world and national economies development. However, to get the manuscript published in the Sustainability journal, it is recommended that the authors make a relatively major revision, and the specific amendments to the text are as follows:
- Since the journal is called Sustainability, the sustainable economic and social development issue regarding the Industry 4.0 concept implementation would be recommended to be analyzed.
- The research questions in questionnaire appear to be too general. Particular issues could be involved in the research such as: areas where automation, robotics, digitalization could be effective; what particular jobs are to be created as new ones and what kinds of jobs are to be replaced or disposed; the need and the cost of vocational training, education system changes the workforce to be adapted to new trends within the Industry 4.0 concept, and so on.
- As the ranking of Sustainability journal is pretty high, more sophisticated statistical methods and assessments would be appreciated including hypothesis estimation.
Author Response
We would like to thank you for your insightful and constructive comments on our article.
Comments 1: Since the journal is called Sustainability, the sustainable economic and social development issue regarding the Industry 4.0 concept implementation would be recommended to be analyzed.
Response 1: Thank you for this suggestion. In order to be more relevant, we have added fragments in section 1.2 (Constraints and Challenges I4.0) (Please, see p. 4-5, lines 180-189)
The added fragments read as follows:
„Each dimension represents a necessary, but not sufficient on its own condition for achieving sustainability. When organizations do not support all of these dimensions, they do not act sustainably. This perspective is currently used in many studies [8,12,47]. It also allows for adopting a multi-faceted, diverse view of companies of various sizes, industry sectors, and the role of the company as a supplier or user of Industry 4.0 [8,37]. The concept of sustainability as well as I.4.0 has received increasing global attention from the public, academic, and business sectors. In this context, an interesting research area is the impact of I4.0 implementation on sustainable development. The analysis of the limitations and challenges that make up the I4.0 capabilities, therefore, becomes an important element of considerations in the context of sustainability.”
We have, also, changed the title of the mentioned section to “Constraints and Challenges of Industry 4.0 and the context of sustainability”
When analyzing the literature on the subject, we realize that it is necessary to take into account the ideas and principles of sustainable development. Therefore, we have added the following sentence in Section 5 (Conclusions) (Please, see p. 13, lines 479-481):
„The development of targeted tools for assessing the degree of implementation of I 4.0 tailored to the requirements of enterprises should include the idea of sustainable development, which allows for a holistic view of all processes taking place.”
Given the preliminary nature of our study, as described below, we intentionally used open questions to find out what factors are taken into account by our respondents.
Comments 2. The research questions in questionnaire appear to be too general. Particular issues could be involved in the research such as: areas where automation, robotics, digitalization could be effective; what particular jobs are to be created as new ones and what kinds of jobs are to be replaced or disposed; the need and the cost of vocational training, education system changes the workforce to be adapted to new trends within the Industry 4.0 concept, and so on.
Response 2: Thank you for drawing our attention to this issue. Indeed, as you mention in your comment, the questions in the questionnaire are general. We totally agree with your statement that particular issues such as areas of automation, etc. could be involved in the research.
In response, we would like to refer to the nature of our research and point out that it was a pilot study, which may have not been sufficiently stressed in the article. The selection of the sample was deliberate and due to this not representative. For that reason we decided to add an appropriate correction to the content of the article:
In Section 1 (Introduction), p.2, line 69, we added the word „piloting”. The whole sentence now reads:
“The purpose of the article is to present the results of the piloting research conducted among I4.0 experts regarding industry specifics and attributes, issues related to the preparation of companies for I4.0, including limitations appearing early on in the process, and difficulties arising in the later stages.”
In addition, we added the sentence:
“At the same time, the pilot study aimed at collecting data to provide guidelines for substantive research adapted to Polish conditions, using observational data to create the right research tool.” (Please, see p.2, lines: 72-74).
In Section 1.3 (Research Questions), p.6, lines 256-257 we decided to delete the sentence:
„In this paper, we focus on empirical research in the above areas at the SMEs and large companies in the region of Silesia (Poland).”
Reflecting on the article, we found that this sentence would be more appropriate for the main study than the pilot study.
In Section 2 (Research and Methods), p. 6-7, lines 271-281, specifically, in order to make it more explicit, we added a fragment to the text:
„This study is a pilot study, preceding the main research. The rationale for conducting it is the fact that I 4.0 in Poland is still at a low level of development, and the mechanisms characteristic for this subject of the study are little known. Hence, we carried it out on a small scale. The selection of the sample was deliberate and due to this not representative. The pilot study reported in this article may be viewed as a combination of the two types of pilot studies used in social sciences: feasibility studies, and the pre-testing (Baker 1994). The study had the character of the first contact with the examined reality; we wanted to verify knowledge about I4.0, limitations, and challenges associated with the implementation of I4.0, check the reaction of respondents to research issues, and the way of measuring. It was also important to gather information on the studied environment and study population in order to be able to formulate a proper research plan and tool for the needs of further expanded research”.
Furthermore, in Section 2, p.7 line 282 we decided to delete the sentence:
“For this purpose, a quantitative, empirical study design was chosen.”
As for section 1.3. we conclude that it is more justified in the case of the main study.
Returning to the issue of too general questions in the questionnaire and bearing in mind the above, we would like to point out that the study had the character of the first contact with the examined reality, hence the general nature of the research questions. We wanted to verify the respondents' knowledge of Industry 4.0, to gather information about perceived obstacles of Industry 4.0, and to check their response to research issues and the way of measuring. On this basis, we wanted to formulate a proper research plan and tool for the needs of further, expanded research. A proper analysis of the procedures and results from the pilot study facilitates the identification of weaknesses that may be addressed (Gudmundsdottir & Brock-Utne, 2010).
Comments 3: As the ranking of Sustainability journal is pretty high, more sophisticated statistical methods and assessments would be appreciated including hypothesis estimation.
Response 3: We understand your concern. However, we would like to highlight that the small sample selection is due, first of all, to the nature of the research (pilot project), and secondly to the low level of development of Industry 4.0 in Poland. There are no statistics on how many 4.0 companies exist in Poland at the moment. We are aware that statistical research first requires checking the "mapping" of the sample in the general population (by checking, for example, the normal distribution – the student's t-test). Since our sample is not representative, and relatively small (39 people), we have not used more advanced statistical methods and we are not able to apply them at the moment. In view of the above, we have not hypothesized but put forward the so-called propositions in the form of research questions.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised paper titled “A FRAMEWORK OF ACTION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF INDUSTRY 4.0. AN EMPIRICALLY BASED RESEARCH “ intended to be published in Journal Sustainability meets all the requirements for professional scientific journal. All the significant comments, recommendations and remarks of reviewers have been incorporated into the manuscript in a proper way giving the paper higher added value and professional features.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you again for your insightful and constructive comments on our article. We appreciate your positive feedback in round 2 about our manuscript. We are convinced that your valuable tips allow us to improve our research workshop.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Short article, but still containing a lot of relevant content. Certainly raises issues that are important, current and require scientific interest. It seems to me that the article may be mainly of interest to people "entering" the subject of Industry 4.0, and the obtained research results can serve as a reference point for other researchers dealing with Industry 4.0 issues, challenges accompanying its implementation, and the benefits it brings. The only caveat I can indicate - were the respondents experts from different countries (which?) Or from one (which?). It is important because the degree of implementation of Industry 4.0 technology, as well as related concerns and expectations are dependent on the country (for example, respondents from Germany are usually much more optimistic, because Industry 4.0 is at a high level there, and investments in modern technologies have already brought the first benefits ...) Nevertheless, I find the article interesting and deserving of publication in its current form.Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks the Editor for the invitation to review this paper.
I have study the paper with great interest because of the topic however it is not related to sustainability issue. SO NO MATTER THE QUALITY AUTHORS SHOULD SUBMIT THE PAPER TO THE SUITABLE JOURNAL.
Meanwhile I suggest authors to develope the literature review as it is very narrow and limited to discussion of well know definition and approaches.
Encourage Authors to elaborate the hypothesis or scientific questions based on the literature as well as use some advanced methodology to provide research.
Also it can be found thet there were no experts but respondents taking part in the study. There are many more methodological imperfections.
In the part with the results it can be found well know pictures describing the IR 4.0
Discussion very narrow as the results are limited.
The conclusion cannot be accepted no recommendations, no study limitations and future study directions.
Reviewer 3 Report
First of all, I would like to thank the editor for giving me the chance to review this manuscript.
The topic studied in the paper is up to date and a very relevant one in research and industry. Due to the increasing speed of digital transformation, studies that further our understanding of the benefits and challenges of Industry 4.0 implementation and that help practitioners to get insights into the “black-box” of digital transformation, as well as support future research and development in this field are clearly needed. Sustainability, which is known for publishing cutting-edge research, is a suitable outlet for research on this topic. The manuscript at hand presents a survey on constraints and challenges of Industry 4.0.
However, I regret that I have very strong concerns regarding the scientific contribution of the paper. As it is, the manuscript is very short, the methodology has several flaws, the results are not convincing and its original contribution within the literature is not clearly defined. I thus assess the paper as not suitable for publication, and outline some major concerns in the following. My comments are meant to be constructive, I hope they help in improving the quality of the paper at hand.
The paper is not well motivated and the introduction needs to be revised. The purpose of the paper and the research topic needs to be further motivated by current statistics and references. Section 1 does not contain new information about the definition of Industry 4.0 as well as challenges compared to previously published papers.
The scientific contribution of the paper is questionable, as the authors do not discuss relevant works in a literature review section. As there is a plethora of works on Industry 4.0, as well as on related challenges and even empirical results, the authors need to clearly differentiate their work from similar publications and highlight the state-of-knowledge in this area.
The methodology of the study as major flaws, e.g.: The sample size is too limited to draw valid and interesting conclusions. The sample selection and evaluation is not described in detail. The questionnaire used is not provided.
The results section is very limited and does not provide any scientific insights or new results.
Discussion and conclusion are way too superficial to draw any implications.
Summing up, the paper is not on the level of a scientific publication and cannot be published in an international journal.
