The Digital Chasm between an Idea and Its Implementation in Industry 4.0—The Case Study of a Polish Service Company

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I positively evaluate the outline of the relationship system of
management tasks as a function of the effects of digitization.
it would also be worthwhile to look further at what information
would support management at each stage of digitization. This predicts
the issue of digitization of data assets and the interrelationships
of derivative indicators.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This article aims to identify management gaps that lead to the formation of digitization problems in companies under Industry 4.0 conditions.

The introduction effectively presents the problem under study, the framing of the problem, the way in which the study is developed, how it is generated and how the rest of the article is structured.

The theoretical and evolutionary framing of the concepts under study is made in a clear way, supported by recent literature. The case study complements and fits well with the theoretical part.

Aspects to improve:

- It should be clear, in the abstract, what the contributions of this study to theory and practice are; these aspects must still be deepened in the conclusions;

- Study limitations should be included. There are specific limitations to case studies, which should be considered and mentioned in this article.

- The author could create a point 4., dedicated to analysing the results of the case study. Since the author doesn't do that, I suggest that the final section, conclusions, be further developed. Investing a little more in this part of the work will undoubtedly bring a qualitative boost to it.

- Recommendations for future studies should be made.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The author should clarify, especially in the Introduction section, what the particular thrust of his approach is. The manuscript is descriptive; it doesn’t advance any testable hypotheses. The abstract demands substantive revision. The current abstract fails to accurately summarize the contents of the article (topic, current beliefs, methodology and conclusion). It doesn’t set-up a narrative for the work and value of the article. The written delivery of the manuscript was confusing and hard to follow. There is a need of structuring the discussion to ensure that the methodological aspects are clearly presented. Apart from compiling key studies, a critical approach to the literature is required. It is true that the authors address key concepts, but this is not good enough for a solid, serious research paper. Some bibliographic references are simply brought up without being developed, or without an adequate explanation as to why they are relevant. The structure is weak and makes following the author's line of thinking a challenging task. The manuscript will benefit from further discussion of key concepts and methodological criteria in order to offer a better articulation between theory and data. The manuscript does not provide sufficient justification for the described and explicated findings that appear to lack empirical consistency. The manuscript could be markedly improved by clearly telling the reader what the theoretical, empirical and practical implications of the research might be. The paper would benefit from a clearer research question or argument around which it could be more clearly structured. It was not always clear what the objective of the paper was. Conclusion needs to be rewritten so that only important results are brought out along with their interpretation, comparison with earlier studies, and implications in a more integrated fashion. This paper seems to be more of a conceptual paper than an original research-based paper, with the empirical part being more of an add-on than the backbone of the paper. The word ‘sustainability’ is never mentioned.

Too much second-rate cited literature.

The proportion of recent Scopus and WoS Q1 sources is quite low.

The relationship between big data-driven decision-making processes, real-time sensor networks, and digitized mass production in Industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems is not covered enough and thus recent Scopus Q1 sources should be cited:

Novak, A., Bennett, D., and Kliestik, T. (2021). “Product Decision-Making Information Systems, Real-Time Sensor Networks, and Artificial Intelligence-driven Big Data Analytics in Sustainable Industry 4.0,” Economics, Management, and Financial Markets 16(2): 62–72. doi: 10.22381/emfm16220213.

Riley, C., Vrbka, J., and Rowland, Z. (2021). “Internet of Things-enabled Sustainability, Big Data-driven Decision-Making Processes, and Digitized Mass Production in Industry 4.0-based Manufacturing Systems,” Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics 9(1): 42–52. doi: 10.22381/jsme9120214.

The relationship between cyber-physical production networks, real-time process monitoring, and Internet of Things-enabled sustainability in Industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems is not covered enough and thus recent Scopus Q1 sources should be cited:

Hawkins, M. (2021). “Cyber-Physical Production Networks, Internet of Things-enabled Sustainability, and Smart Factory Performance in Industry 4.0-based Manufacturing Systems,” Economics, Management, and Financial Markets 16(2): 73–83. doi: 10.22381/ emfm16220214.

Popescu, C. K., Oașa (Geambazi), R.-Ș., Geambazi, P., and Alexandru, B. (2021). “Real-Time Process Monitoring, Industry 4.0 Wireless Networks, and Cognitive Automation in Cyber-Physical System-based Manufacturing,” Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics 9(1): 53–63. doi: 10.22381/jsme9120215.

The relationship between cognitive decision-making algorithms, Internet of Things-based decision support systems, and real-time big data analytics in sustainable Industry 4.0 wireless networks is not covered enough and thus recent Scopus Q1 sources should be cited:

Hamilton, S. (2021). “Real-Time Big Data Analytics, Sustainable Industry 4.0 Wireless Networks, and Internet of Things-based Decision Support Systems in Cyber-Physical Smart Manufacturing,” Economics, Management, and Financial Markets 16(2): 84–94. doi: 10.22381/emfm16220215.

Coatney, K., and Poliak, M. (2020). “Cognitive Decision-Making Algorithms, Internet of Things Smart Devices, and Sustainable Organizational Performance in Industry 4.0-based Manufacturing Systems,” Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics 8(4): 9–18. doi:10.22381/JSME8420201

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Author,

Thank you for conducting a highly relevant research.  Here are some of my recommendations that would improve the text:

1. Lines 69-71:  Pease further clarify the following statement: "The goal of this manuscript is to identify management gaps that lead to formation of 69 digitization problems in companies in the conditions of Industry 4.0." In which areas? In which horizon? Strategic, tactical, operational? 
2. Lines 71-72: "...identification of general digitization problems and to a company's development, ...". Please refine the term "company's development".
3. Line 78: Please explain shortly why the comany has been selected.
4. Is Figure 2 based on some existing literature? If so, please provide the reference.
5. Could the text between line 287 and 351 be supplemented with a table summarizing the main findings?
6. In section 4.2, please provide a paragraph on how the interviews were conducted. 
7. In Conclusion, please add a paragrah on limitations of your research and Future Research needed. 

Kind regards,

Reviewer

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised version can be published.