Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper " Real-time data utilization barriers in improving production performance: An in-depth case study linking lean management and industry 4.0 from a learning organization perspective" by  Saabye et al. uses the results of a case study of a Danish company to examine the role of Learning Organisation in linking Lean Management and Industry 4.0.

While the general approach consisting of interviews, meetings, archival data and direct observations is in line with the usual analysis techniques, there is no clear evidence that the conclusions obtained by the Authors (Propositions 1-5 of Section 4) are specific to the introduction of large-volume, real-time data gathering systems. Indeed, the shortcomings mentioned by the Authors seem to be mainly related to the widespread difficulty in establishing second-order problem solving strategies. For instance, neglecting preventive maintenance based on failure reports, as mentioned in the paper, is a long-standing problem that has been dealt with using more traditional approaches.

Therefore, the main issue to be considered in the revision is to highlight how the introduction of  I4.0 techniques might exacerbate this risk.

Additional minor remarks:

1)  Figure 1 is not clear. Both LM and I4.0 are divided into two parts, only one of which is defined.  Does the LO domain include only the overlapping part or, rather, the undefined parts of LM and I4.0?

2) The Literature Review should be moved from the "Materials and Methods" section to the Introduction

3) Format and style should be thoroughly improved. Concepts should be better explained ("explorative research", "different dimensions of the phenomenon", "abnormal stations", "lack of ownership among operators") and ambiguous sentences should be disambiguated ("Only practicing first- order problem-solving prevents the organization from"  probably " Practicing first-order problem-solving alone prevents the organization from ").

Author Response

 

Dear reviewer.

Thank you for taking your time to review our paper and provide very useful feedback. This is very much appreciated.

The changes we have made to paper, based on your comments, is explained in in the table below and highlighted with orange text in the attached word document ‘sustainability-946053_first revision’.

Best regards,

Henrik Saabye, on behalf of the authors.

Reviewer	Comment	Counter measure
1	While the general approach consisting of interviews, meetings, archival data and direct observations is in line with the usual analysis techniques, there is no clear evidence that the conclusions obtained by the Authors (Propositions 1-5 of Section 4) are specific to the introduction of large-volume, real-time data gathering systems.	We acknowledge that the conclusion presented in section 4 has analytical/logical generalizability towards barriers to utilizing other digital technologies in other production environments since the scientific focus is non-technocentric. However, since the study investigates the case of real-time utilization explicitly, we still believe that our conclusion is valid but can, as you point out, be strengthened.  To strengthen the scientific link to real-time data system utilization, we have therefor: A) Added a link to real-time data in the introduction (line 58) and a paragraph (line 85-95) that outlines the scientific issues as being the utilization of real-time data. This also adresses the preventive maintenance issue mentioned by you. B) In section 4, we have made changes to the first paragraph (Line 585-588) to address a more explicit link to real-time data utilization and C) removed the propositions in section 4 due to a lack of statistical generalizability. D) On recommendation from another reviewer, we have also added a paragraph at the end of section 4 (Line 677-690) with a practical example of applying the proposed change for real-time utilization, from a non-technocentric perspective. We also believe that this will add to the validity of our conclusions.  Please advise if this paragraph should be placed differently in the article.
1	Indeed, the shortcomings mentioned by the Authors seem to be mainly related to the widespread difficulty in establishing second-order problem solving strategies. For instance, neglecting preventive maintenance based on failure reports, as mentioned in the paper, is a long-standing problem that has been dealt with using more traditional approaches. Therefore, the main issue to be considered in the revision is to highlight how the introduction of  I4.0 techniques might exacerbate this risk.
1	Figure 1 is not clear. Both LM and I4.0 are divided into two parts, only one of which is defined.  Does the LO domain include only the overlapping part or, rather, the undefined parts of LM and I4.0?	To clarify figure 1, we have added a paragraph (line 53-63) that more explicitly explains the figure. The figure has also been adjusted. The learning organization is now pointing in at the two overlapping parts.
1	The Literature Review should be moved from the "Materials and Methods" section to the Introduction	Done. The  Literature Review has been moved to the introduction section.
1	Format and style should be thoroughly improved. Concepts should be better A)explained ("explorative research", B)"different dimensions of the phenomenon",C) "abnormal stations", D)"lack of ownership among operators") and E) ambiguous sentences should be disambiguated ("Only practicing first- order problem-solving prevents the organization from"  probably " Practicing first-order problem-solving alone prevents the organization from ")	A) In line 270 the explanation of ‘explorative research’ has been unfolded. B) In line 398 the explanation of ‘different dimensions of the phenomenon’ has been changed to ‘non-technological variables of why the manufacturer is not able to utilize real-time data.’ C) In line 257 ‘Abnormal stations’ has been altered to be ‘detect unplanned stops’. D) In line 599 the ‘lack of ownership’ has been clarified to be ‘the operators did not adopt new routines and work practices to improve performance proactively.’ E) Your recommendation has been used in line 614-616. Thank you.
2	The authors should describe in detail the research methodology (interviews), duration, structure of research participants, etc. Omitting this fact makes the elements of the work unreliable.	A description of the applied method and research approach related to sampling and interview process has been added in line 303-326.
2	Authors should specify exactly what scientific issues were included in this article. If not, there is no scientific justification for this work.	A paragraph explicitly clarifying and explaining the scientific issue in the study is added to the paper (Line 85-95)
2	Can the authors emphasize the originality of the work by comparing it to the previous solutions?	We believe that originality in this paper revolve around addressing the non-technological elements of how industry 4.0 impact the shop floor initiatives associated with lean, problem solving (Kaizen), teamwork, workforce involvement, and autonomy, which Buer et al. [7] point out as a research gap.
2	The authors should supplement the presented article with an example of the practical application of the proposed changes - State before and after. Especially if the solution is for lean production. A practical example should show how effective the proposed solution is compared to the previous solution.	A paragraph has been added (Line 675-690) that gives a practical example of how the findings afterwards has successfully been applied. As background information: This study is the first part of a PhD project and action research project focused on developing the manufacturer’s capability (Velux’) to utilise I4.0 technologies.
2	It is interesting that the authors, drawing conclusions from their own research, refer to the literature, e.g. line 307-308- We also conducted two focus group sessions with operators and one with selected leaders from 307 the second sampling round, as listed in table 2 [52 ]. Are these really the authors' conclusions?	A description of the applied method and research approach related the focus-group interview process has been added in line 351-377
3	In this study, the authors focused mainly on manufacturing industries, not in-service industries. I did not find any discussion on how to interpret the results for service industries as lean management no longer only belongs to the manufacturing industry. The authors should discuss this issue and framework the whole manuscript accordingly.	We acknowledge that the findings in this paper have relevance in a non-manufacturing setting, but we do not believe that this is the aim of this paper. We believe that the aim of single case studies (including this one) is to dive into a specific context, which then narrows analytical/logical generalizability. In our case, we do not believe that it is either the intent or possible to move beyond a manufacturing context.
3	About the application of the research method… do you think that the opinion of a single building material manufacturing company can guarantee conclusions about barriers to Lean Management (LM) and industry 4.0 (I4.0)? Don't You think that such a proposal suffer from exploration? This can conclude on local opinions.	Due to the nature of this study, as being a single-case study we fully acknowledge that the propositions in section 4 lack statistical generalizability. We have rewritten section 4 (Line 582-690) only to dicuss the findings from the paper's analysis, as illustrated by figure 3, without proposing propositions. We have also explicitly in the conclusion section (Line 714-719) outlined this. We still believe that the analytical/logical generalizability of the study is valid among other manufacturers, also outside Scandinavia, but not in regard to the contextual challenge and micro-foundations of how to, e.g., develop and train leaders to set up a supportive learning environment.
3	The conclusions drawn from this study are general whereas the case study is country and industry-specific. It can be misleading for another context. I suggest contextualizing and geographically locate the main outcomes of such a study. Major notes to support such an issue are, in my opinion, still required.
3	The authors developed a conceptual model and it is illustrated in Figure 3. Based on that, the authors concluded five propositions. However, the authors did not perform any statistical analysis to validate these propositions. I think these propositions are immature without any statistical validation. The sampling number is too small to propose any general propositions. If I choose a different company with a different group, my propositions can change.	We fully acknowledge that the propositions in sections 4 a lack of statistical generalizability. We have the rewritten section 4 (Line 582-690) to a conclusion on the findings of the paper illustrated by figure 3.
3	The conclusion section should be more precise in the case of the presentation of scientific contributions and limitations to the work done.	The first paragraph of the conclusion section (line 694-703), has been rewritten to be more precise in addressing the scientific issues in that also has been explicitly clarified in the paper (Line 85-95).

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors should describe in detail the research methodology (interviews), duration, structure of research participants, etc. Omitting this fact makes the elements of the work unreliable.

Authors should specify exactly what scientific issues were included in this article. If not, there is no scientific justification for this work.

Can the authors emphasize the originality of the work by comparing it to the previous solutions?

The authors should supplement the presented article with an example of the practical application of the proposed changes - State before and after. Especially if the solution is for lean production. A practical example should show how effective the proposed solution is compared to the previous solution.

It is interesting that the authors, drawing conclusions from their own research, refer to the literature, e.g. line 307-308- We also conducted two focus group sessions with operators and one with selected leaders from 307 the second sampling round, as listed in table 2 [52 ]. Are these really the authors' conclusions?

Author Response

Dear reviewer.

Thank you for taking your time to review our paper and provide very useful feedback. This is very much appreciated.

The changes we have made to paper, based on your comments, is explained in in the table below and highlighted with orange text in the attached word document ‘sustainability-946053_first revision’.

Best regards,

Henrik Saabye, on behalf of the authors.

 

Reviewer	Comment	Counter measure
1	While the general approach consisting of interviews, meetings, archival data and direct observations is in line with the usual analysis techniques, there is no clear evidence that the conclusions obtained by the Authors (Propositions 1-5 of Section 4) are specific to the introduction of large-volume, real-time data gathering systems.	We acknowledge that the conclusion presented in section 4 has analytical/logical generalizability towards barriers to utilizing other digital technologies in other production environments since the scientific focus is non-technocentric. However, since the study investigates the case of real-time utilization explicitly, we still believe that our conclusion is valid but can, as you point out, be strengthened.  To strengthen the scientific link to real-time data system utilization, we have therefor: A) Added a link to real-time data in the introduction (line 58) and a paragraph (line 85-95) that outlines the scientific issues as being the utilization of real-time data. This also adresses the preventive maintenance issue mentioned by you. B) In section 4, we have made changes to the first paragraph (Line 585-588) to address a more explicit link to real-time data utilization and C) removed the propositions in section 4 due to a lack of statistical generalizability. D) On recommendation from another reviewer, we have also added a paragraph at the end of section 4 (Line 677-690) with a practical example of applying the proposed change for real-time utilization, from a non-technocentric perspective. We also believe that this will add to the validity of our conclusions.  Please advise if this paragraph should be placed differently in the article.
1	Indeed, the shortcomings mentioned by the Authors seem to be mainly related to the widespread difficulty in establishing second-order problem solving strategies. For instance, neglecting preventive maintenance based on failure reports, as mentioned in the paper, is a long-standing problem that has been dealt with using more traditional approaches. Therefore, the main issue to be considered in the revision is to highlight how the introduction of  I4.0 techniques might exacerbate this risk.
1	Figure 1 is not clear. Both LM and I4.0 are divided into two parts, only one of which is defined.  Does the LO domain include only the overlapping part or, rather, the undefined parts of LM and I4.0?	To clarify figure 1, we have added a paragraph (line 53-63) that more explicitly explains the figure. The figure has also been adjusted. The learning organization is now pointing in at the two overlapping parts.
1	The Literature Review should be moved from the "Materials and Methods" section to the Introduction	Done. The  Literature Review has been moved to the introduction section.
1	Format and style should be thoroughly improved. Concepts should be better A)explained ("explorative research", B)"different dimensions of the phenomenon",C) "abnormal stations", D)"lack of ownership among operators") and E) ambiguous sentences should be disambiguated ("Only practicing first- order problem-solving prevents the organization from"  probably " Practicing first-order problem-solving alone prevents the organization from ")	A) In line 270 the explanation of ‘explorative research’ has been unfolded. B) In line 398 the explanation of ‘different dimensions of the phenomenon’ has been changed to ‘non-technological variables of why the manufacturer is not able to utilize real-time data.’ C) In line 257 ‘Abnormal stations’ has been altered to be ‘detect unplanned stops’. D) In line 599 the ‘lack of ownership’ has been clarified to be ‘the operators did not adopt new routines and work practices to improve performance proactively.’ E) Your recommendation has been used in line 614-616. Thank you.
2	The authors should describe in detail the research methodology (interviews), duration, structure of research participants, etc. Omitting this fact makes the elements of the work unreliable.	A description of the applied method and research approach related to sampling and interview process has been added in line 303-326.
2	Authors should specify exactly what scientific issues were included in this article. If not, there is no scientific justification for this work.	A paragraph explicitly clarifying and explaining the scientific issue in the study is added to the paper (Line 85-95)
2	Can the authors emphasize the originality of the work by comparing it to the previous solutions?	We believe that originality in this paper revolve around addressing the non-technological elements of how industry 4.0 impact the shop floor initiatives associated with lean, problem solving (Kaizen), teamwork, workforce involvement, and autonomy, which Buer et al. [7] point out as a research gap.
2	The authors should supplement the presented article with an example of the practical application of the proposed changes - State before and after. Especially if the solution is for lean production. A practical example should show how effective the proposed solution is compared to the previous solution.	A paragraph has been added (Line 675-690) that gives a practical example of how the findings afterwards has successfully been applied. As background information: This study is the first part of a PhD project and action research project focused on developing the manufacturer’s capability (Velux’) to utilise I4.0 technologies.
2	It is interesting that the authors, drawing conclusions from their own research, refer to the literature, e.g. line 307-308- We also conducted two focus group sessions with operators and one with selected leaders from 307 the second sampling round, as listed in table 2 [52 ]. Are these really the authors' conclusions?	A description of the applied method and research approach related the focus-group interview process has been added in line 351-377
3	In this study, the authors focused mainly on manufacturing industries, not in-service industries. I did not find any discussion on how to interpret the results for service industries as lean management no longer only belongs to the manufacturing industry. The authors should discuss this issue and framework the whole manuscript accordingly.	We acknowledge that the findings in this paper have relevance in a non-manufacturing setting, but we do not believe that this is the aim of this paper. We believe that the aim of single case studies (including this one) is to dive into a specific context, which then narrows analytical/logical generalizability. In our case, we do not believe that it is either the intent or possible to move beyond a manufacturing context.
3	About the application of the research method… do you think that the opinion of a single building material manufacturing company can guarantee conclusions about barriers to Lean Management (LM) and industry 4.0 (I4.0)? Don't You think that such a proposal suffer from exploration? This can conclude on local opinions.	Due to the nature of this study, as being a single-case study we fully acknowledge that the propositions in section 4 lack statistical generalizability. We have rewritten section 4 (Line 582-690) only to dicuss the findings from the paper's analysis, as illustrated by figure 3, without proposing propositions. We have also explicitly in the conclusion section (Line 714-719) outlined this. We still believe that the analytical/logical generalizability of the study is valid among other manufacturers, also outside Scandinavia, but not in regard to the contextual challenge and micro-foundations of how to, e.g., develop and train leaders to set up a supportive learning environment.
3	The conclusions drawn from this study are general whereas the case study is country and industry-specific. It can be misleading for another context. I suggest contextualizing and geographically locate the main outcomes of such a study. Major notes to support such an issue are, in my opinion, still required.
3	The authors developed a conceptual model and it is illustrated in Figure 3. Based on that, the authors concluded five propositions. However, the authors did not perform any statistical analysis to validate these propositions. I think these propositions are immature without any statistical validation. The sampling number is too small to propose any general propositions. If I choose a different company with a different group, my propositions can change.	We fully acknowledge that the propositions in sections 4 a lack of statistical generalizability. We have the rewritten section 4 (Line 582-690) to a conclusion on the findings of the paper illustrated by figure 3.
3	The conclusion section should be more precise in the case of the presentation of scientific contributions and limitations to the work done.	The first paragraph of the conclusion section (line 694-703), has been rewritten to be more precise in addressing the scientific issues in that also has been explicitly clarified in the paper (Line 85-95).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In this study, the authors discussed the link between Lean Management (LM) and industry 4.0 (I4.0) by exploring a non-technical perspective. The study is interesting and worth exploring. However, some critical points need to be addressed as stated below.

 

In this study, the authors focused mainly on manufacturing industries, not in-service industries. I did not find any discussion on how to interpret the results for service industries as lean management no longer only belongs to the manufacturing industry. The authors should discuss this issue and framework the whole manuscript accordingly.

About the application of the research method… do you think that the opinion of a single building material manufacturing company can guarantee conclusions about barriers to Lean Management (LM) and industry 4.0 (I4.0)? Don't You think that such a proposal suffer from exploration? This can conclude on local opinions.

 

The conclusions drawn from this study are general whereas the case study is country and industry-specific. It can be misleading for another context. I suggest contextualizing and geographically locate the main outcomes of such a study. Major notes to support such an issue are, in my opinion, still required.

 

The authors developed a conceptual model and it is illustrated in Figure 3. Based on that, the authors concluded five propositions. However, the authors did not perform any statistical analysis to validate these propositions. I think these propositions are immature without any statistical validation. The sampling number is too small to propose any general propositions. If I choose a different company with a different group, my propositions can change.

 

The conclusion section should be more precise in the case of the presentation of scientific contributions and limitations to the work done.

Author Response

Dear reviewer.

Thank you for taking your time to review our paper and provide very useful feedback. This is very much appreciated.

The changes we have made to paper, based on your comments, is explained in in the table below and highlighted with orange text in the attached word document ‘sustainability-946053_first revision’.

Best regards,

Henrik Saabye, on behalf of the authors.

Reviewer	Comment	Counter measure
1	While the general approach consisting of interviews, meetings, archival data and direct observations is in line with the usual analysis techniques, there is no clear evidence that the conclusions obtained by the Authors (Propositions 1-5 of Section 4) are specific to the introduction of large-volume, real-time data gathering systems.	We acknowledge that the conclusion presented in section 4 has analytical/logical generalizability towards barriers to utilizing other digital technologies in other production environments since the scientific focus is non-technocentric. However, since the study investigates the case of real-time utilization explicitly, we still believe that our conclusion is valid but can, as you point out, be strengthened.  To strengthen the scientific link to real-time data system utilization, we have therefor: A) Added a link to real-time data in the introduction (line 58) and a paragraph (line 85-95) that outlines the scientific issues as being the utilization of real-time data. This also adresses the preventive maintenance issue mentioned by you. B) In section 4, we have made changes to the first paragraph (Line 585-588) to address a more explicit link to real-time data utilization and C) removed the propositions in section 4 due to a lack of statistical generalizability. D) On recommendation from another reviewer, we have also added a paragraph at the end of section 4 (Line 677-690) with a practical example of applying the proposed change for real-time utilization, from a non-technocentric perspective. We also believe that this will add to the validity of our conclusions.  Please advise if this paragraph should be placed differently in the article.
1	Indeed, the shortcomings mentioned by the Authors seem to be mainly related to the widespread difficulty in establishing second-order problem solving strategies. For instance, neglecting preventive maintenance based on failure reports, as mentioned in the paper, is a long-standing problem that has been dealt with using more traditional approaches. Therefore, the main issue to be considered in the revision is to highlight how the introduction of  I4.0 techniques might exacerbate this risk.
1	Figure 1 is not clear. Both LM and I4.0 are divided into two parts, only one of which is defined.  Does the LO domain include only the overlapping part or, rather, the undefined parts of LM and I4.0?	To clarify figure 1, we have added a paragraph (line 53-63) that more explicitly explains the figure. The figure has also been adjusted. The learning organization is now pointing in at the two overlapping parts.
1	The Literature Review should be moved from the "Materials and Methods" section to the Introduction	Done. The  Literature Review has been moved to the introduction section.
1	Format and style should be thoroughly improved. Concepts should be better A)explained ("explorative research", B)"different dimensions of the phenomenon",C) "abnormal stations", D)"lack of ownership among operators") and E) ambiguous sentences should be disambiguated ("Only practicing first- order problem-solving prevents the organization from"  probably " Practicing first-order problem-solving alone prevents the organization from ")	A) In line 270 the explanation of ‘explorative research’ has been unfolded. B) In line 398 the explanation of ‘different dimensions of the phenomenon’ has been changed to ‘non-technological variables of why the manufacturer is not able to utilize real-time data.’ C) In line 257 ‘Abnormal stations’ has been altered to be ‘detect unplanned stops’. D) In line 599 the ‘lack of ownership’ has been clarified to be ‘the operators did not adopt new routines and work practices to improve performance proactively.’ E) Your recommendation has been used in line 614-616. Thank you.
2	The authors should describe in detail the research methodology (interviews), duration, structure of research participants, etc. Omitting this fact makes the elements of the work unreliable.	A description of the applied method and research approach related to sampling and interview process has been added in line 303-326.
2	Authors should specify exactly what scientific issues were included in this article. If not, there is no scientific justification for this work.	A paragraph explicitly clarifying and explaining the scientific issue in the study is added to the paper (Line 85-95)
2	Can the authors emphasize the originality of the work by comparing it to the previous solutions?	We believe that originality in this paper revolve around addressing the non-technological elements of how industry 4.0 impact the shop floor initiatives associated with lean, problem solving (Kaizen), teamwork, workforce involvement, and autonomy, which Buer et al. [7] point out as a research gap.
2	The authors should supplement the presented article with an example of the practical application of the proposed changes - State before and after. Especially if the solution is for lean production. A practical example should show how effective the proposed solution is compared to the previous solution.	A paragraph has been added (Line 675-690) that gives a practical example of how the findings afterwards has successfully been applied. As background information: This study is the first part of a PhD project and action research project focused on developing the manufacturer’s capability (Velux’) to utilise I4.0 technologies.
2	It is interesting that the authors, drawing conclusions from their own research, refer to the literature, e.g. line 307-308- We also conducted two focus group sessions with operators and one with selected leaders from 307 the second sampling round, as listed in table 2 [52 ]. Are these really the authors' conclusions?	A description of the applied method and research approach related the focus-group interview process has been added in line 351-377
3	In this study, the authors focused mainly on manufacturing industries, not in-service industries. I did not find any discussion on how to interpret the results for service industries as lean management no longer only belongs to the manufacturing industry. The authors should discuss this issue and framework the whole manuscript accordingly.	We acknowledge that the findings in this paper have relevance in a non-manufacturing setting, but we do not believe that this is the aim of this paper. We believe that the aim of single case studies (including this one) is to dive into a specific context, which then narrows analytical/logical generalizability. In our case, we do not believe that it is either the intent or possible to move beyond a manufacturing context.
3	About the application of the research method… do you think that the opinion of a single building material manufacturing company can guarantee conclusions about barriers to Lean Management (LM) and industry 4.0 (I4.0)? Don't You think that such a proposal suffer from exploration? This can conclude on local opinions.	Due to the nature of this study, as being a single-case study we fully acknowledge that the propositions in section 4 lack statistical generalizability. We have rewritten section 4 (Line 582-690) only to dicuss the findings from the paper's analysis, as illustrated by figure 3, without proposing propositions. We have also explicitly in the conclusion section (Line 714-719) outlined this. We still believe that the analytical/logical generalizability of the study is valid among other manufacturers, also outside Scandinavia, but not in regard to the contextual challenge and micro-foundations of how to, e.g., develop and train leaders to set up a supportive learning environment.
3	The conclusions drawn from this study are general whereas the case study is country and industry-specific. It can be misleading for another context. I suggest contextualizing and geographically locate the main outcomes of such a study. Major notes to support such an issue are, in my opinion, still required.
3	The authors developed a conceptual model and it is illustrated in Figure 3. Based on that, the authors concluded five propositions. However, the authors did not perform any statistical analysis to validate these propositions. I think these propositions are immature without any statistical validation. The sampling number is too small to propose any general propositions. If I choose a different company with a different group, my propositions can change.	We fully acknowledge that the propositions in sections 4 a lack of statistical generalizability. We have the rewritten section 4 (Line 582-690) to a conclusion on the findings of the paper illustrated by figure 3.
3	The conclusion section should be more precise in the case of the presentation of scientific contributions and limitations to the work done.	The first paragraph of the conclusion section (line 694-703), has been rewritten to be more precise in addressing the scientific issues in that also has been explicitly clarified in the paper (Line 85-95).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am still ill at ease identifying  the real contribution of this paper.  

While the case study could indeed be of some interest, the conclusions (presented as subsections in the new version) seem to boil down to the consideration that the introduction of I4.0 technologies can prove useless if the LM environment is flawed (4.1, 4.2, 4.4 and 4.5) or even detrimental if operators feel they are being coerced into using real time data (4.3).

 If that is the case, the barrier mentioned in the title would simply be the presence of a poor LM whereas the" link" between LM and I4.0 would reduce to the existence of an efficient LM.  In other words, LM would be a pre-requisite for improving the production performance following the introduction of I4.0 technologies.

Furthermore, the authors have indeed shown the role of learning organization in the effectiveness of I4.0 technologies (which is also reflected in the title). Therefore, hints at future research that " should investigate the LO factors linking LM and I4.0" are rather obscure.

In my opinion, the paper could be considered for publication if the Authors try to clarify these issues and put the emphasis of their article on the case study followed by a short analysis of the results without drawing general unsubstantiated conclusions.

Author Response

Thank you very much for helping us in clarifying and strengthens our conclusions and future research proposals. We fully acknowledge your recommendations, which we have addressed in the following way:

1. We have updated the first part in the conclusion section (Line 694-709), with a paragraph (Line 702-706 in blue) that highlights the conclusion that LM would be a pre-requisite for improving the production performance following the introduction of I4.0 technologies. We have extended this conclusion with an additional point that it requires an existing LM environment that has moved beyond a technocentric one.
2. We have retracted the point that future research should investigate the LO factors linking LM and I4.0 and clarified (Line in 726-731 in blue) that future research should focus on providing a statistically based generalization of the conceptual model and focus on how to overcome the identified barriers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

All rewievers comments were taken under consideration. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for helping us in clarifying and strengthen this paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the corrections.

Author Response

Thank you very much for helping us in clarifying and strengthen this paper.